Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read. To be considered on Thursday 23 March.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Peace Process

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current progress of the peace process.

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about recent progress in the peace negotiations.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Representatives of the Government continue exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein arid the loyalist parties. We have made clear the need for constructive discussion on the decommissioning of arms and for the parties to join in an exploration of the ways by which this can be most effectively achieved.

Mr. Soley: Given the considerable achievement by everyone, including the Government, of keeping the peace process moving, can we make sure that we do not get bogged down on the arms issue, which could be part of the normal negotiating procedure? I think that the Secretary of State will find considerable support in all parts of the House if he proceeds in that way although he might not find support for it when he picks up a British or American newspaper.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the outset, but it is important for substantial progress to be made on the issue of decommissioning arms before parties can enter discussions with the Government on political matters. I agree very much with what was said yesterday in Congress by Mr. Holbrooke, the Assistant Secretary with

responsibility for European and Canadian affairs, who said that decommissioning should begin now and should not wait until the end of negotiations.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, for the progress of the peace process to continue, it will be necessary to maintain the confidence of the nationalist community? Does he not recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is seen by many in that community as a sectarian force, and does he not think that some offer of reform and restructuring might assist in ending the log jam in the present negotiations and discussions?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I wish to pay a tribute to the RUC, whose steadfastness has done a great deal to lead to the ceasefires some seven and a half and six months ago respectively. Secondly, the RUC is well aware of the need to acquire, retain and enhance confidence right through the community, including the nationalist community. In that it is having considerable success now that it does not have to spend time in anti-terrorist operations to the extent that it used to. Thirdly, questions of restructuring the RUC are way beyond the mark. The RUC and the police authority together are sensibly engaged on examining the way in which the transition to more peaceful circumstances may be managed.

Mr. Hain: May I wish the Secretary of State a happy St. Patrick's day tomorrow? Opposition Members are united in supporting his determination to progress the peace talks. I wish that that were true of all his hon. Friends. I urge him to resist the determination of those weary old warhorses who have signed early-day motion 803 to keep Sinn Fein from the negotiating table. They seem obsessed with that. It is vital to get Sinn Fein, along with all other parties to the dispute, around the negotiating table as soon as possible so as to maintain the momentum.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman began very well with his question, for which I thank him, but it deteriorated fairly soon afterwards. I do not recognise his description of any of my hon. Friends. All hon. Members, my hon. Friends included, wish to see the process of talks towards an overall political settlement resume and succeed. The hon. Gentleman said that Sinn Fein should be part. If it can show itself to be like any constitutional party and no longer inextricably linked with or connected to a paramilitary organisation, that will become possible as far as the Government are concerned. But if peace has come for good, why can it not give the assurances for which we have asked and which I have communicated to all hon. Members in a letter which I wrote this week?

Sir James Kilfedder: Is it not sickening that the head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, should describe himself as a "man of peace", unless of course he is referring to the fact that his terrorist organisation has been responsible for sending countless men, women and children to the peace of the grave? Despite the ballyhoo in Washington, may I urge all constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland in the meantime to engage in meaningful dialogue either on the framework document, or on any other document that may be produced for those talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to words that, along with many others from that quarter, a large number of people throughout the United


Kingdom and more widely find hard to take. On the second part of his question, I warmly agree that it is of the highest importance for constitutional parties to engage in discussion of those issues, which must inherently be interwoven in any final accommodation or settlement. I hope that that will come about. I believe that it will.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the long list of Government concessions already given and pocketed by the IRA terrorists, will the Secretary of State inform the House of any further concessions outstanding or intended to be granted in the foreseeable future? Does not he understand the frustration and anger in the community at such rewards being given to unrepentant IRA murderers, and the insult that that causes to law-abiding citizens in the community?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Since I do not recognise that any concessions—let alone rewards—have been made to the IRA, it follows that I cannot give notice of any further ones. There will not be. Peace-loving constitutional people in Northern Ireland and more widely have deep hostility to those who claim that they are committed to peace and democratic methods, and who cannot and refuse to give the assurances that the Government have asked for: that they are prepared to deal seriously and constructively with the question of getting rid of the arsenal of arms they have, which is appropriate only to an army, and not appropriate to people who are concerned with peace.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Can my right hon. and learned hon. Friend confirm, as he made clear in his recent Washington statement, that, in the policy and principle of progressive disarmament, we have the best hope of delivering all parties into substantive talks, and that only those talks in that circumstance can deliver peace?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very glad to reiterate to my hon. Friend what I have said time and again, as has the Prime Minister—that constitutional parties and politicians cannot be expected to sit down and discuss the future structures of Northern Ireland with people who, by implication, reserve for themselves the right to go back to the use of arms, which they have used with such devastating and evil effect over so many years.

Mr. Maginnis: Since Martin McGuinness, who leads the Sinn Fein delegation to the exploratory talks, and Gerry Adams, who now rubs shoulders with President Clinton, were both flown to the Whitelaw Cheyne walk talks in 1972, has the Secretary of State any intelligence that he can share with us as to when those two individuals cut their links with the IRA and became democrats? We would all be interested to know that. Since the Prime Minister suggested on 16 January that the IRA and Sinn Fein were two separate organisations, and the Secretary of State told us on 7 March that they were still inextricably linked, did the Prime Minister ignore intelligence that was available to him at the time, or does the Secretary of State have new intelligence that he can share with us? We would appreciate some elucidation on that issue.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Over many a long month and year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and the hon. Gentleman have acknowledged and asserted that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they are separate

organisations, linked inextricably as they are. The hon. Gentleman knows very well the capacity in which Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams came to London when they met the noble Lord Whitelaw, and he is perfectly entitled to make that point. However, what I have to do and what I have to urge others to do is to look forward and encourage those who now claim to be politicians who are committed to peaceful ways of resolving political disputes and issues. We must encourage them to demonstrate that, because only they know their true intentions. We have to go by objective outward and visible signs, and it is those for which we are calling.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be unwise to overlook the fact that the vast majority of the nationalist community have been involved in a peace process over the past 25 years, and that during that peace process over those long, difficult and dangerous years, that large section of the nationalist community kept alive their faith in the political process?
Does the Secretary of State further agree that, when we reach a stage, as we should very soon, where, in effect, the political process supersedes the peace process, we can start to do what we all set out to do—to create a solution to a very serious problem? Does the Secretary of State agree that the longer a peace process is seen to operate in isolation from a political process, the more difficult it will be to solve the problems that we have to solve?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked at the beginning of his question—that the overwhelming majority of the nationalist community were wholly committed to peaceful ways of dealing with political matters and condemned with disgust the violence that was perpetrated in the name of their cause. That is absolutely true. That is expressed in the enormous majority of nationalists in a recent poll—over 90 per cent.—who called upon the IRA to surrender their arms.
We all want to see—we believe that it is the only effective means of achieving stability in Northern Ireland—a process by which constitutional politicians sit down and discuss the issues and reach agreements about them. That is the way forward and I believe, therefore, that it is much more propitious for that that peace should be established. That is the way in which they are linked as the hon. Gentleman said.

Ms Mowlam: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Opposition want progress to be made on the decommissioning of arms, but we do not want that issue to become a stumbling block in the peace process because the talks are crucial to keeping the momentum going. In that light, will he clarify to the House some of the statements that he made in answer to earlier questions? He has asked for "visible signs" and for "clear and constructive assurances". Can the Secretary of State be more specific about what he was referring to? At one point he referred to decommissioning beginning now. It might be helpful if he could clarify whether that is a precursor to dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I was saying that it is only the IRA and Sinn Fein who know what their true intentions are. The rest of us listen to their words, but we have to make up our own minds as rational human beings by reference to what they say, what they do and, more aptly, by what they do not do. That is what I meant. I drew


attention to what was said by Mr. Holbrooke on the Hill yesterday to show how important it was that decommissioning should commence.
I made clear in the letter that I sent to all hon. Members the other day what was necessary for exploratory talks. I said:
Before Ministers will participate there must first be a clear and reliable assurance from Sinn Fein that constructive discussion—particularly in achieving substantial progress on decommissioning arms—would be facilitated and accelerated by Ministers joining the dialogue.
In other words, there is no magic formula which is the one and only one which can possibly be espoused. Another way of putting it would be to say that they have got to assure us of serious and substantive talks designed to lead to concrete steps on the decommissioning of arms and explosives. You know it when you see it; let us not get tied down to a legalistic approach to something that is very simple and easily understood.

Private Lee Clegg

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in discussing the release on licence of Private Lee Clegg.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Private Clegg was informed last week that his case will be referred to the life sentence review board for consideration at its meeting on 6 June.

Mr. Sutcliffe: The case was reviewed on 20 January, so why was it so long—until last Monday—before we found out that it is to be reviewed again in June? The life sentence review board met in February and is to meet again in April, but we are told that Private Clegg will have to wait until June. Is it not the Secretary of State who takes the final decision on the recommendations? When will he be in a position to announce Clegg's release in view of the weight of evidence that proves that Clegg was not responsible for what took place?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern and I wrote a letter to him that he should have received yesterday or today. In line with normal procedures, Private Clegg's case has been reviewed with a view to determining when it should be considered by the life sentence review board, the body which advises the Secretary of State on the release of life sentence prisoners. The question of eligibility for release on life licence is, rightly, always considered with great care and in great detail. I am satisfied that 6 June is the appropriate date for consideration of the case by the board.

Mr. Brazier: Further to the previous question, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to include in the review of such cases, with which he is assisting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the fundamental question whether it is possible in principle for a criminal offence of any sort to occur during a volley of shots, the first of which—indeed, all but one of which—was deemed to be legal, given that under British law one has to have a guilty intent to be guilty of a crime of this kind?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Again, I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in these matters. He will know the terms in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced the review of the law of

murder. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the central feature of the criminal mind, known to lawyers as the mens rea, and I do not doubt that such matters will be under consideration.

Framework Documents

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the response in Northern Ireland to the framework documents.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations and of what general nature he has received following publication of the framework documents; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (M r. Michael Ancram): "Frameworks for the Future" was published on 22 February. It is too early to make a full assessment of the response in Northern Ireland, and many people and organisations are still studying these complex documents before responding. So far the Northern Ireland Office has received 147 letters of varied content from members of the public and from Members of Parliament.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reaction from the parties in Northern Ireland suggests that the nationalists feel that their views are well represented in the framework document? Has not the time therefore come to provide some cheer and comfort to the Unionists? To that end, will he continue to place great emphasis on the need to decommission IRA arms and assure the House that he will consider fully and favourably the proposals contained in the Unionist parties' own documents?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises a number of issues. On his final point, we have made it clear that we shall consider and discuss any documents put on the table for discussion about the future of Northern Ireland which address the issues. It is important to recognise that there are a number of interlocking issues across a number of different relationships that we have discussed many times in the House which must be addressed if we are to find a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. Any suggestions that address those issues—wherever they come from—which are capable of securing agreement are matters that we would certainly wish to discuss with the parties. I give that assurance again.
As for the decommissioning of arms, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has this afternoon already clarified the Government's position. I merely add that it is a matter of fact that if we are talking about sitting round a table to come to an agreement on a settlement for Northern Ireland and the parties round it are asked to join parties such as Sinn Fein, they will not do so unless they are satisfied that there has been a sufficient decommissioning of arms by the paramilitaries for all parties to be present on the same basis.

Mr. Greenway: What time scale does my hon. Friend have in mind for talks on the framework documents? Is he aware of the intense interest of the people of this country in the resolution of the problem,


and especially in a fair and proper decommissioning of arms, without which they see any negotiations as completely unfair and improper?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot add to what I have already said about the decommissioning of arms. The Government have no set deadlines or timetable. The purpose of the framework documents, in which there has been enormous interest within Northern Ireland, was to assist and promote discussion and negotiation involving the parties. About 120,000 copies have so far been issued within Northern Ireland. There is much discussion and debate taking place on what is within the documents and on others' ideas about the issues. The debate is constructive and healthy. We hope that it will lead in a reasonably short time to the parties coming together and looking for a constructive way forward.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that, after the initial euphoric response from specially briefed industrialists and the media, the general reaction has been one of dismay and disappointment, despite Government-inspired media hype that elderly politicians were out of touch with the electorate? Will he recognise now that many young people are saying that it is the "You've been framed" document?

Mr. Ancram: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I find that many people, and especially the young, are saying that it is time for political representatives to talk about the issues. The purpose of the framework documents was to assist in that process.
I have read with great interest some of the reactions of other parties within Northern Ireland. I have discovered such levels of misunderstanding of what is within the framework documents in some of the responses that I would welcome a chance to get alongside the hon. Gentleman, for example, to go through the documents line by line to explain to him the Government's intention.

Mr. Murphy: The Minister will confirm that the framework documents make much of European links. Does he agree that an essential part of the process of peace and reconciliation will be the financial help that will come from the European Union? Will he give the House and the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that the European level will be truly additional to and over and above the Northern Ireland budget, and that the Treasury will not use the extra cash to reduce its spending plans for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ancram: I am not certain whether this arises directly from the framework documents. The documents make it clear that a north-south body would be able to advise the two Governments on matters of common European interest affecting the whole of the island of Ireland. It would possibly manage certain programmes that are already cross-border within Northern Ireland, such as Intereg. Effectively, all representations to Europe would be through the two sovereign Governments. Any moneys forthcoming would be subject to the usual treatment unless the Governments agreed otherwise.

Prison Visits

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to how many visits per 28 days Northern Ireland families of prisoners are entitled; for

what reason there is a difference between this figure and the entitlement of families in the rest of the United Kingdom; and when he plans to change their entitlement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): It is our intention to introduce a second paid visit every four weeks in Northern Ireland, in line with the change introduced in Great Britain last year.

Mr. Walker: I thank the Minister for removing that disparity. What are the travel and administration costs of the financially-assisted visits for prisoners in Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland prison rule No. 65?

Sir John Wheeler: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman the precise figures in the detail that he may seek. I will ensure that he has that information. However, the proposals have a cost to the taxpayer which must be accommodated within the budget of the prison service in Northern Ireland.

Criminal Justice System

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for reforming the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Sir John Wheeler: We have put forward a range of measures in recent years to improve the working of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. They include the Criminal Appeal Bill, introduced last month, establishing in Northern Ireland and England and Wales the criminal cases review commission. Other measures are in preparation.

Mr. Mullin: Would it be too much to ask that the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 be applied to all cases in Northern Ireland? In particular, is it not about time, in the light of all the other changes taking place in the Province, that interrogations in police custody were tape-recorded? Did the Minister read the remarks of the judge in the Ballymurphy case the other day which ended after 138 days? The judge said that, had audio recording been available, the case could have been dealt with in six days. Is it not about time that that state of affairs was dealt with?

Sir John Wheeler: I am well aware of the proposals to include video and tape recording of all interviews in police custody in Northern Ireland. Those matters are kept under regular review in the light of the changing security circumstances. I shall continue to be advised by the Chief Constable as to the need to retain the existing arrangements, which I hope may well change in the near future.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been much talk about changes in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland? There is a great deal of sympathy for Private Clegg and his family. However, the fundamental difference between us and the men of terror is that we believe in, and live by, the rule of law. Any departure from the rule of law, by anyone, would be a departure from the peace process.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks well in favour of the rule of law. The plain truth is that it is the terrorist gangs who depart from the rule of law. It is the terrorist gangs who


want to remove people from Northern Ireland who do not fit with their specifications, and it is the terrorist gangs who hold arms and engage in armed robberies. That is what this House roundly condemns.

Mr. Trimble: I welcome the Minister's reference to the Criminal Appeal Bill. Does he agree that that demonstrates the ease by which legislation for Northern Ireland can proceed upon proper grounds, and will he recommend that to his colleagues on either side of him?
With regard to the future of the criminal justice system, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no question of a precipitate rundown of the Diplock court system while we still have so many unsolved terrorist cases and so many terrorists who have not yet been made amenable? Will he also support the representations that we have made that there should be consideration, together with the Home Office, about what permanent anti-terrorist legislation the United Kingdom will need?

Sir John Wheeler: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that, of course, I understand why he makes that point. When it is possible and appropriate to include Northern Ireland considerations and issues in legislation originating from England and Wales, that will be done. As for the operation of the Diplock courts, they operate having regard to the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. If it is the case—as it is—that people are still intimidated and could not sit as jurors or give evidence as witnesses other than through the protection of the existing legal measures, those measures must be sustained.

Framework Documents

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to consult (a) community groups, (b) churches and (c) other public institutions on the framework documents.

Mr. Ancram: Copies of "Frameworks for the Future" have been made widely available within Northern Ireland. The Government have encouraged all those who read it to consider the proposals it contains and to let us and the political parties know their views.

Mr. McFall: What legislative powers does the Minister envisage will be devolved to a Northern Ireland Assembly? How does he see the relationship between that body and the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads the first part of the framework documents he will see the Government's proposals set out, including proposals that legislative powers over matters regarded as transferred, or as essentially transferable, in 1973, be given to an assembly. Obviously the relationship between that assembly and local authorities will be a matter for discussion when the framework documents are being considered, but it would also be a matter for consideration by the assembly itself, once it was set up.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consult the European Foundation as to the merits of allowing a north-south body to be the interlocutory mechanism for dialogue with the European Union on the disbursement of funds relating to the northern part of Ireland? Will he consider the precedent that such a devolved body could

pose for other parts of the kingdom in their relations with Brussels were devolution to extend ultimately to Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: I am interested in my hon. Friend's question and will certainly wish to consider some of the nuances of it, but I am can tell him now that as regards its European representations, any assembly set up within Northern Ireland would have to operate, as does any other part of the United Kingdom, through the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister was kind enough to tell us earlier of the vast volume of copies of the framework documents circulated throughout Northern Ireland. Would that be approximately on a par with the circulars that we receive from the Inland Revenue, and would the response be roughly equivalent? Will the Minister press on with the consultations and talks with other parties, as we have done, for the simple reason that, apart from the initial response of what one might call the hired hacks, those who have carefully read the document have concluded that it is divisive and fatally flawed? At the end of all those consultations, will he consider producing another consultative paper—an outline paper on which there could be widespread agreement?

Mr. Ancram: I listened with interest to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I have not yet come across a case of citizens going out voluntarily to collect the forms that he mentioned, or ringing to ask for those forms to be sent to them, as has happened with the framework documents. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the fact that within Northern Ireland, which is a mature democracy, there has been great interest in the documents so that people can inform themselves about what is being proposed and can play a part in advising their political representatives on the line that they might take in negotiations.
As for the talks, I repeat that the important thing is that the issues identified within the framework documents as those that have to be dealt with be discussed. We do not claim a monopoly of wisdom either in the British Government or in the Dublin Government. We simply say that in the documents we have identified the issues and have suggested ways in which they could be resolved. If anybody else comes forward with other ways that could secure the necessary measure of agreement we would welcome that as part of the discussion. I shall certainly be pleased to meet any party at any time to take the discussion forward.

Mr. Beith: To what extent has the Minister ascertained the views of the political representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries on their willingness to take part in discussions on the document and to assist that process by participating in the decommissioning of arms?

Mr. Ancram: I must first say that I have not been in direct communication with the representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries, any more than I have been involved in the exploratory discussions with Sinn Fein. The same criteria would apply in that case as apply to Sinn Fein. It is our understanding from statements that have been made that representatives of the loyalists are keen to enter discussions and that, although they may have reservations about certain parts of the framework documents, they are prepared to enter discussions on the


basis of the documents. Again, I welcome discussion from whatever quarter it comes, so long as the criteria for becoming involved in discussions, in terms of the decommissioning of arms, have been met.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister of State for the many initiatives that he has taken since the documents were published. Does he not agree that, far from being divisive, they are an excellent basis on which to take the discussions forward, through whatever mechanism and whatever medium, and that, closely and on a continuing basis, the English majority are watching to ensure that all Unionist politicians rise to the moderate opportunity presented?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I find it difficult to understand how a document that is based on the consent and agreement of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland can be divisive; after all, if we believe in democracy, the consent of the majority and the agreement of the political parties within that part of the United Kingdom must be at the very foundation and roots of democracy.

Ms Mowlam: We welcome the consultations on the framework document, and wish the Government well. What message has the Minister for the many groups—trade unions, businesses and parts of the voluntary sector—whose members I have consulted in the past couple of weeks? They are frustrated not only by the lack of any clear economic strategy for the use of the money that is available from both the public purse and international funds, but by the lack of accountability and transparency in relation to how the money is currently allocated.

Mr. Ancram: I find the hon. Lady's question very surprising. As she knows, we are consulting various parties about how moneys can be spent. We are trying to encourage inward investment into Northern Ireland, to provide jobs and prosperity for its people. We are keen to ensure that whatever dividend results from the cessation of violence and, I hope, the permanent establishment of peace is shared as widely as possible, and that no part of the Northern Ireland community feels that it has not gained advantage from it.
The most important element in any future prosperity for Northern Ireland, however, must be political development. The question concentrates on that, and I would welcome the views of trade unions, Churches and business organisations, from whichever quarter they may come.

Investment Forum

Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what positive responses to date have resulted from the Investment Forum held in Belfast last year.

Mr. Ancram: We are pursuing 17 potential inward investment projects as a direct result of the forum. There are other spin-offs: for example, our overseas sales teams have seen a significant surge of interest in Northern Ireland as an investment location.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for his reply, and congratulate all who have been involved in the Investment

Forum. I also send good wishes to those who will be involved in similar activities in the United States later this year.
Does the Minister consider that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament can reasonably expect opportunities to meet those who visit their constituencies with a view to investment? Will he encourage Industrial Development Board officials to involve Northern Ireland Members of Parliament more in future than has been customary in the past, and allow them to engage in consultation with such groups on the clear understanding that consultation is confidential?

Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly pass on what the hon. Gentleman has said to my noble Friend Lady Denton. He rightly said that any such contact would have to be on a confidential basis. As he will realise, there is considerable competition for the projects that I mentioned in my original answer to go elsewhere, and it would not be clever of us to try to conduct such negotiations in public.

Mr. Alexander: Is my hon. Friend aware of the wide interest created in Northern Ireland by the forum, which was held under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself? Is he further aware—as I am sure he must be—of the enormous export opportunities that it has generated, and will he assure the House that the momentum will be continued, because of its great importance?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made an important point. The Investment Forum was very much the start of the process, not the end. The Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland is working hard to carry forward the initiatives that were begun in the forum. It is interesting to note that calls to the IDB in London have doubled since 31 August, when the ceasefire was announced.

Mr.Spellar: Does the Minister accepet that, although new investment is welcome, existing businesses must also thrive if the peace dividend is not to be perceived as a peace deficit? In particular, will he assure us that every effort is being made to ensure a steady progress of orders at Harland and Wolff? What is being done to obtain the order for a floating production oil system for that yard?

Mr. Ancram: If I may, I shall pass that last question on to my noble Friend Lady Denton and ask her to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely clear to those of us who work within Northern Ireland that peace of itself is not enough to bring the incentives for inward investment and exports of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Political development is needed to underpin the incentives for investment. That is why we put so much store by the political process. That is the only way in which confidence will be created in a stable future of Northern Ireland which will bring the benefits to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Illegal Weapons

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the recovery and destruction of illegal weapons in the Province.

Sir John Wheeler: Since the announcement of the ceasefires, up to 5 March 39 weapons, just fewer than


2,300 rounds of ammunition and almost 600 lb of explosives have been recovered. Substantial progress on decommissioning paramilitary arms is needed to move the political process forward. We continue to pursue decommissioning of illegally held arms during the exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein and loyalist paramilitaries.

Mr. Robathan: I welcome that response from my hon. Friend. Will he reassure the House that the security forces will continue actively to search for illegal weapons? Does he agree that the most positive contribution that could be made by President Clinton and the glittering guest list at last night's Sinn Fein dinner in New York would be for them to press Gerry Adams and to explain to him that there could no further progress towards a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland unless substantial progress was made on handing in illegally held weapons?

Sir John Wheeler: I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces will continue to pursue all illegal acts in Northern Ireland and, in particular, to search out the stocks of weapons and explosives that still exist. On his latter point, I should simply say that Provisional Sinn Fein should act. It is actions that count, not words.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of Labour councillors personally benefiting from fraud, corruption, nepotism and inefficiency is such that people should be informed about it before they vote in the local government elections?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that there are many cases of waste, inefficiency and malpractice in Labour councils; increasingly, one has seen that in auditors' reports. It is right that the auditors should investigate and make those matters public.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm, as a matter of fact, that in a few weeks' time two new tax rises will be introduced—the cutting of mortgage tax relief and of the married couples allowance—which will add about £250 a year to the average family's tax bill?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly confirm the tax changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I will also confirm for him that, as a result of the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now well into the most sustained recovery on the most secure basis that this country has seen for many years, with the economy growing at almost 4 per cent., exports at record levels, the current account in surplus, investment rising and unemployment now having fallen by 600,000—a set of economic circumstances that

we have not seen for many years. That is largely due to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend took the right decisions at the right time.

Mr. Blair: Are not those tax rises, on top of the existing ones, one reason why people feel so angry about this Government? Is not the truth that, with taxes up, mortgages up and living standards falling, all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is confirm what the vast majority of the British people already knew: that unless you are one of the favoured few at the top, you are worse off under the Tories.

The Prime Minister: Which taxes would the right hon. Gentleman cut? Which pieces of expenditure has the right hon. Gentleman opposed? How many times has the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) sought extra expenditure of one sort of another? When is he going to understand the most basic economic fact—that he cannot promote expenditure and call for tax reductions and expect to be taken seriously? We have taken the measures necessary for this country's economy. That is why our economy is more effective, more efficient and more competitive than any other economy in western Europe.

Mr. Blair: I will tell him what I understand, that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Since he asked me the question again, let me tell him what is wrong. What is wrong is to fight the election promising to cut taxes then raise them by 7p in the pound.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about what is right for this country, why does he not for once acknowledge the changes that there have been in this economy? Why does he not for once acknowledge what once he used to say—that his plans for a minimum wage would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge what a large number of business men are now telling him across Europe—that his plans for the social chapter would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge that this country now has an economy that Labour could never have achieved if it had followed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who on every conceivable occasion has guessed wrongly about what should happen with this economy?

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those parents who have set up an organisation called PASS to defend the right of parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools? Will he arrange for an application form to be sent to the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman does not need one, but his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who speaks on education from the Labour Front Bench most certainly does, for he would still destroy the chances for parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools,


even though the vast majority of hon. Members in this House, including the right hon. Gentleman, know that that choice should be available to every parent.

Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister's comments on waste and inefficiency, how does he justify an increase over the past four years of 36 per cent. in the amount of public money spent on Government entertainment? What would he have to say to a council which was forced to sack teachers and which responded by raising by more than a third the money that it spent on its own entertainment?

The Prime Minister: I think what I would say to any council which was contemplating that sort of action concerning teachers would be: how many administrators in education is it looking at, why are there two administrators for every three teachers in education and why do county councils like the right hon. Gentleman's seek to look at teachers before they look at other areas of savings?

Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity in the past couple of days to discuss Anglo-Belgian relationships with his counterpart the Prime Minister of Belgium, and in particular what must have been a disappointing visit for him to west London on Tuesday night? At what is undoubtedly a difficult time for British football, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelsea football club on a stunning victory on Tuesday night, its fans on the good-natured manner in which the game was watched, and the Metropolitan police especially on the firm but sensitive way in which the game was policed?

Madam Speaker: I should just inform the hon. Gentleman before the Prime Minister attempts to answer that question that, nice as it may seem, the Prime Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Chelsea football club.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass credit for the success to the players. May I simply say that I am delighted at how well they did?

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Did the Prime Minister read this morning's comment by Lord McAlpine that a spell in opposition would be a good thing for the Tory party, and does he agree that this is one of the rare occasions on which the interests of the Tory party and of the nation coincide?

The Prime Minister: I did see the comments in the New Statesman and Society. I understand that Lord McAlpine is promoting his book, which is a work of fiction.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend share the pleasure of my constituents in Basildon at the first visit

to this country of a President from the Philippines, Fidel Ramos? Will he tell the House whether any trade agreements have been reached as a result of the visit? Finally, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to assist and encourage the President to try to alleviate the plight of street children and to take forward the social reform programme?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I am delighted to welcome President Ramos to the United Kingdom. He will find a very warm welcome here and would clearly find one in Basildon also, were he able to visit it. I am not sure whether the President is here long enough to do so on this occasion, but when I meet him later on this afternoon I will be happy to pass on the invitation. I understand that it has been a successful trade visit and a number of contracts have been signed with substantial British companies.
I know that President Ramos is achieving a great deal with his social reform programme and I know that the whole House would welcome all that can be done to help street children, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.

Terrorism

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from Sir Colin Figures and Sir Peter Marychurch concerning knowledge of an impending attack on airlines at Frankfurt airport in December 1988; and what response he has sent.

The Prime Minister: We have received no such representations.

Mr. Dalyell: In that case, could Sir Colin and Sir Peter be invited to shed light on the very specific jictels—Joint Intelligence Committee telegrams—giving clear information about the downing of an aircraft in October, November and December 1988? Could they shed light on the agreement reached by western intelligence with terrorist elements in the middle east about the downing of just one airliner, rather than 10 or 12, in what was described by Mohtashemi as "the rain of blood", and also on what they know of statements by United States agencies about Major Charles McKee not being able to return to the United States alive?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that detailed question so that I might examine the matter before responding.
As he knows, the Lockerbie investigation is the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken in this country. I have to reiterate to the House that the Lord Advocate has discovered credible evidence against two people only, and they remain the only two accused. If concrete new evidence were brought forward, it would of course be fully investigated. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman, of which he was kind enough to give me prior notice—that western intelligence agencies would enter into a deal with terrorist groups to allow the destruction of an aircraft—is utterly and completely unfounded. It did not happen and the hon. Gentleman can be assured upon that point.

Engagements

Madam Speaker: The next question is from Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: Question 5.

Hon. Members: Question 6.

Mr. Skinner: All right; Question 6.
Q6. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports today that if the Tory party loses more than 1,000 seats in the local government elections in May, which it undoubtedly will, senior Tory Members of Parliament are going to kick him out like a dog in the night? Last year, the Prime Minister said that he had got three bastards in the Cabinet: I do not think that he can count.

The Prime Minister: As for counting, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's Question 5 and Question 6 at the same time.
The substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question might well have been asked of me last year, the year before last, and the year before that. It almost certainly was, and it will very probably be asked of me next year, the year after and the year after that.

Sir Graham Bright: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in this morning's newspapers suggesting that he is considering plans to change how state education is funded? Will he confirm to the House that that is not so?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I can tell the House

categorically that it is absolutely without foundation. I do not know whether it is incompetence or malice, but it is certainly inaccurate.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen today's statement by the rail regulator that decisions on sleepers and Motorail are a matter not for British Rail but for the Government? Will he therefore confirm today that there will be a full and formal consultation before any decisions are taken on those vital services?

The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Fort William sleeper. Representations on that can be made during consultation on the ScotRail public service requirement. In the meanwhile, British Rail will retain the assets.

Madam Speaker: As we started late, I can allow one more question.

Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two Conservative-controlled district councils in my constituency—Forest Heath and St. Edmundsbury—plan no increase in council tax this year? Is he aware that the only reason why my constituents will pay more council tax this year is because of Lib-Lab controlled Suffolk county council, despite it having used up some £16 million of reserves so carefully built up by the last Conservative administration?

The Prime Minister: Lib-Lab councils are a very expensive luxury indeed and I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Last year, Conservative councils cost around £131 less at band C than Labour councils, and this year the difference looks as though it may be even greater—probably as much as £160 less. I hope that the electorate will bear that in mind in May.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House provide information on forthcoming business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Child Support Bill.
TUESDAY 21 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of European Community Document No. 5097/95 relating to the common agricultural policy price proposals for 1995-96 and related measures.
WEDNESDAY 22 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Progress on remaining stages of the Jobseekers Bill.
THURSDAY 23 MARCH—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of remaining stages of the Jobseekers Bill.
Debate on the civil service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 24 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 22 March to consider European Community Document No. 11287/93 relating to external frontiers.
[Tuesday 21 March:
Agricultural Price Proposals 1995-96—European Community Document No. 5097/95; relevant European Legislation Committee report HC 70-x (1994-95).
Wednesday 22 March:
European Standing Committee B—European Community Document No. 11287/93, External Frontiers; relevant European Legislation Committee report HC 48-xxix (1993-94).]
In the following week beginning Monday 27 March, I expect on the Monday to take progress on remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill, which would continue to a conclusion on Tuesday 28 March. I am not yet in a position to give details for Wednesday 29 March and Thursday 30 March, but I anticipate taking Government business on the Thursday until about 7 o'clock, with a debate on the motion for the Adjournment thereafter.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Before moving on to next week's business, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on an event that is to take place this Saturday in Birmingham—your inauguration as chancellor of the Open university?
On next week's business, can the Leader of the House explain why, given so much pre-publicity by Ministers about National Science Week next week, we are not holding a debate in the House of Commons on science policy?
Secondly, given the two important defeats in the House of Lords suffered by the Government this week on pension rights of divorced women and remarried war widows, will the Leader of the House give us an

assurance that the Government will not seek to overturn those two significant steps when the Bill returns to the House for its remaining stages?
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we are likely in the near future to have a debate on dentistry in the national health service, in view of the 800,000 patients, 3,000 of whom are in my area, who have had national health service dental care withdrawn?
Finally, in view of the comments made—not in a book—by the former Conservative party treasurer, Lord McAlpine, that the Prime Minister has
stuffed up the Conservative Party
and that
Opposition might cleanse the Tories",
an opinion that Lord McAlpine claims is shared by Tory Members of Parliament, can we have a debate on the consequences for Britain of a lame duck Government, probably a stuffed lame duck Government, who have certainly lost their authority in their own party, in the House and in the country?

Mr. Newton: Rather unusually for the hon. Lady, as she usually manages to ask slightly more sensible questions, her last one sounded as if she was practising as a scriptwriter in a rather second-rate television comedy show. [Interruption.] I am probably exaggerating the quality of the show.
Perhaps I might take the other questions in the order in which they were asked. First, I need hardly say that I do indeed join the hon. Lady in the congratulations that she extended to you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, I should have thought of that myself, and I am very happy to join in now.
On National Science Week, the hon. Lady will be aware that we recently had a debate about science, although I accept that there is pressure for another, and I shall bear that in mind. Ministers generally, and I hope all Members of Parliament, will be anxious to support the aims of National Science Week, which was very successful last year. I believe that it will be even more successful this year, and I shall seek further opportunities for debate in due course.
On the House of Lords decisions, the hon. Lady will be aware that, as is usual in dealing with decisions in another place, the Government will wish to consider carefully the implications of the decisions that have been made.
On dentists, the hon. Lady might have registered the fact that in England today nearly 21 million adults and more than 6 million children are registered with NHS dentists, and that there has been a net increase in the number of adult patients registered with NHS dentists. Indeed, since June 1992, the figure is equivalent to one extra patient every four minutes.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend, if not next week, as soon as possible afterwards, offer an assurance of a very early debate on the first special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was published on 7 March


1995? That is a matter of grave concern to the House, and is delaying the important activities of the Select Committee.

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that point in mind, and it might also be appropriate to have further discussions in the usual channels about the way in which to respond to that report.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If the Leader of the House is not prepared to hold a debate on the NHS in relation to the lack of NHS treatment from NHS dentists, will he carefully consider the proposals that are afoot to consider restructuring out-of-hours consultancy visiting fees for doctors? Is he aware that, if the current proposals were put into effect, they would act as a perverse disincentive to rural GPs to have any night visits for their patients? It is a serious matter, which needs urgent attention in the House.

Mr. Newton: In view of the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his point, I shall draw his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is it not rather insulting to the Select Committee on European Legislation that the Leader of the House has announced that the uniform visa for the European Community will be considered by European Standing Committee B, when that Select Committee specifically said that it should be considered on the Floor of the House?
Can my right hon. Friend further explain what is the point of debating the common agricultural policy on Tuesday, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just issued a table in the other place showing that the average cost per person of the CAP is £4 a week, while the Foreign Secretary told us in a letter the other day that it was £6.50 a week and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us just two weeks ago that it was £7 a week? Would it not be better to scrap the CAP debate until we can find out the right figure and instead debate the uniform visa format, consideration of which on the Floor of the House was judged vital by the Select Committee?

Mr. Newton: I thought that the misunderstanding about the common visa—it is not the principal point of the document to which I referred—which my hon. Friend raised last week, had been cleared up. noted that he had generously tabled an early-day motion thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for placing a scrutiny reserve on the discussion that took place in Brussels last week. It is a matter of interest, but I think that a debate in the Standing Committee of the kind that I have confirmed today is the appropriate way forward.
As for the CAP and in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, it seems entirely sensible to have a debate on it, which might help to clarify any confusion that exists in my hon. Friend's mind or that of anyone else on that matter. There is no confusion about what is in common between my hon. Friend and the entire Government: the desire to make the CAP more efficient and effective and to continue the process of reform.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a debate soon on the need to decentralise power

throughout the United Kingdom, especially in view of the report in today's edition of The Herald on Government-funded research? That report found that in England there is a clear majority in favour of regional elected assemblies; that there is an even bigger majority in Wales in favour of a Welsh Assembly; and that the overwhelming majority of Scots are in favour of a Scottish Parliament. Why are the Government stubbornly refusing to respond to the wishes of the people on that matter?

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is a majority in every part of the country in favour of regional assemblies, he needs to do some more research. Whatever that research might show, we all know that the only reason for the Labour party's proposal for regional assemblies is that it is the only way in which it can make sense of its proposal for devolution in various places. Moreover, the net result of such assemblies would not be an increase in local democracy, as is often claimed; rather those bodies would suck up power from existing local responsibility.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate soon on the levels of council tax in north-west Kent? Conservative-controlled Dartford borough council has brought down the council tax, but Liberal-Labour-controlled Kent county council has increased it. That means that all my constituents will have to pay more council tax because of the financial irresponsibility of the Lib-Lab-controlled Kent county council.

Mr. Newton: I should certainly wish to consider the possibility of providing further opportunities for debate on local government and related matters for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I suspect that similar points could be made about Labour and Liberal-controlled areas in many other parts of the country.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 721?
[That this House welcomes the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee is carrying out an investigation into nuclear proliferation; and calls upon the Government to hold a debate on the subject before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference takes place in mid-April.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the conference on the renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is vital? Does he also accept that concern has been expressed about how Government policy in recent years on Trident and THORP has fitted in with that treaty? We should have the opportunity to debate nuclear non-proliferation before the conference begins in April.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand if I can make no immediate promise of a debate on that matter. The Government are co-operating with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is holding an investigation into some of the matters raised. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Committee earlier this year, we firmly believe that indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty would be in the best security interests of all.

Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend offer a debate on conservation of fish


stocks in the world's oceans? There is some urgency on that because we know that the Spanish fleets have devastated the fishing grounds of Namibia, have finished off the stocks off the coast of west Africa and are now moving into the waters off Newfoundland. We have no true guarantees of what they may do in the Irish sea. Wherever they go, they perpetrate an ecological disaster and leave desolation behind them. Should not the House come to a view on the changes that are required in international law to address that problem?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the exchanges with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier this week and of the efforts that are being made by the Government to contribute to sensible negotiation to find a sensible solution to the dispute between Canada and the European Union. It is clear that that solution must be based on regard for conservation and must be effectively enforced.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Would not it be a good idea to have a debate on what is happening to the Motorail and sleeper services in the north of Scotland? As I interpret the Prime Minister's response to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) a few minutes ago, he seemed to give an assurance that those services would still be running while formal consultations were taking place.
That is exactly the assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to give at the most recent Scottish questions, despite the fact that a Scottish Office Minister had previously given that assurance to the Scottish Grand Committee. Does not the Leader of the House appreciate that the uncertainty in itself is deeply damaging, particularly to the tourist industry in Scotland? May we have a debate and a decision, and may we have that assurance repeated now?

Mr. Newton: I am obviously not in a position to add greatly to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I think he had it in mind that, while decisions at the moment are matters for the commercial judgment of British Rail, steps will be taken to ensure that the equipment and infrastructure—for example, the rolling stock—are maintained in place.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on job creation in Derbyshire, especially in the light of yesterday's excellent news that unemployment in the county has dropped by 4,000 over the past year, which is a drop of more than 9 per cent.? Such a debate is important in the light of today's even better news that Toyota is to build a second factory in the county, which will employ another 1,000 people.

Mr. Newton: Again, I shall bear that request for a debate in mind because it has many attractions. I am quite sure that every hon. Member will welcome the further decision by Toyota. It is reaffirmation of the company's confidence in the economy of this country and, dare I say it, it is further confirmation that Britain, for reasons not

unconnected with the social chapter that Labour wants to impose upon us, is far and away the most attractive place for people to come to do business.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Government are pushing forward the Disability Discrimination Bill on 27 and 28 March, should not the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at least have an opportunity to make some progress in Committee so that the House may have an opportunity to decide between the principles contained in those two measures? I hope that the Minister does not find my question too unsophisticated, which is what he said last week.

Mr. Newton: I certainly do not wish as a weekly routine to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is unsophisticated, if only because it would be untrue. As I said last week, I have no plans to change the normal arrangements for dealing with private Members' Bills. However, I have plans for making sure that the important Government Disability Discrimination Bill makes progress.

Mr. Harold Elletson: May we have an early Government statement on the state of Anglo-American relations, particularly following President Clinton's decision to allow Sinn Fein to raise funds in the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people in this country found the sight of Bianca Jagger and other celebrities hobnobbing with Gerry Adams at a fund-raising dinner in the United States yesterday, which took place precisely because of that decision, absolutely disgusting?
Does he also agree that people in America who want to know more about what is going on in Northern Ireland would do well to listen to the group from Families Against Intimidation and Terror, which has gone to Washington to protest against Mr. Adams? They should listen particularly to Thomas Clarke, whose son Malachy hanged himself in December after being beaten up by a Sinn Fein-IRA terror gang.

Mr. Newton: Plainly, many hon. Members, including myself, well understand why my hon. Friend makes those points. I hope that he, in turn, will understand that I commented on the matter during Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday, and that I would not wish to add to those remarks.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Leader of the House give credit to the BBC for showing the film last night on euthanasia in Holland? That programme was done in a sensitive manner. I know that he might not have seen it himself, but did it not raise many serious issues that are at least worthy of a debate? Will he arrange for that?

Mr. Newton: Not having seen the film, I am not in a position to comment directly. As it happens, however, I saw a discussion of the film later at night on the BBC. That discussion was responsible and balanced, and it clearly showed some of the difficulties in the proposals that are sometimes urged upon us.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on early-day motion 763?
[That this House notes the honourable Member for Leicester West, as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee, is interviewing leading industrialists and


businessmen on their remuneration packages whilst at the same time offering these people his services on how to improve their public speaking and presentational skills; further notes that other services offered by the honourable Member for Leicester West include advice on making people redundant and serving on the Remuneration Committee of Ladbroke plc which awarded the Chairman of that company a salary of £583,000 per annum—£108,000 per annum more than the Chairman of British Gas plc—and in addition awarded five directors of the company 1.3 million share options worth £2.3 million; believes that these activities represent a conflict of interest with his current position as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee; and calls on him to resign immediately.]
Thus the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment would have an opportunity to defend himself properly.

Mr. Newton: The Employment Select Committee has just made a number of recommendations on a matter that may not be directly related to the issue that leads to my hon. Friend's question, but that could be appropriate for a debate. Short of that, I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks, but I have read reports in newspapers that the Committee may give further consideration to the matter.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the future of the railway rolling stock industry in view of the announcement made at 3 o'clock this afternoon in Berlin that Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., one of Britain's two main rail manufacturers, is to merge with the German company Daimler-Benz? Is he aware that the financial markets suggest that, in the long term, that may bring work into British factories because of lower labour costs and high productivity in this country, but that, in the short term, an order from Britain for more Networker trains for London commuters is vital to keep the York works open? Unless such an order is made in the next few weeks, the York works will close, and the enormous multi-million-pound opportunities for exporting the railway body shells that are built in York to Germany and other parts of Europe will be lost for ever.

Mr. Newton: There are two points there. On the latter one, of course I recognise the urgency of ABB's position. We have been over this ground before, so the hon. Gentleman will know that it is a matter for British Rail, but I understand that it intends to issue tenders within the next couple of weeks. I am not so sure that the thrust of the first part of his question will be as welcome among Labour Members as it is among Conservative Members, but I agree with it.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to make a statement in the House next week on the Official Secrets Act? Is he aware that, in the 1989 discussions, it was acknowledged that all former members of the secret intelligence service should not write books based on their experiences? Since that occasion, two officers—Brian Crozier and Desmond Bristow—have done so, and next week a BBC journalist is publishing a book that includes direct quotations from no fewer than 27 officers, without any reference to the Minishy of

Defence D-notice committee. Does not that drive a coach and horses through the Act, as many of us at that time predicted would happen? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement by the Home Secretary next week?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to arrange a statement, but I can undertake to bring my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 735 on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill?
[That this House notes the overwhelming support for the abolition of cruelty to wild mammals shown by honourable Members on 3rd March when the Second Reading of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill was agreed to by 253 votes to 0 and calls on the Government to ensure that Parliamentary time is given to ensure the Bill passes all its stages; further notes that supporters of cruelty to wild mammals were too embarrassed to show their lack of support and abstained; and believes that the unanimous vote for the Second Reading of the Bill should be reflected in the composition of the Standing Committee.]
That Bill received its Second Reading on 3 March by 253 votes to zero. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Bill will go into Committee and will he take this opportunity, or arrange for an early opportunity, to explain what is going on? When Bills leave the Chamber after being given an overwhelming Second Reading, we expect them to turn up in Committee so that hon. Members can continue the consideration. What is going on?

Mr. Newton: It is not for me to determine the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considers private Members' Bills. It has been working away on a number of Bills in the order in which they were given a Second Reading by the House. That is entirely reasonable and sensible.

Mr. Harry Greenway: As one of the longest-serving members of the council of the Open university, may I associate myself with the warm remarks about your installation on Saturday as our chancellor, Madam Speaker?
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the disgraceful pressure from Ealing council to spend planning gain money from the Tesco development of the Hoover site miles away from Perivale in Southall? That matter should be brought before the House. The people of Perivale are more than annoyed—they will not have it.

Mr. Newton: It occurs to me almost weekly that were my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate on Ealing and were successful, he would have enough material to occupy an hour and a half on his own.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House hear the long, courteous and considered response that the Prime Minister gave to my careful question at Question Time? In the circumstances, could we have a statement from the Law Officers, particularly the Crown


Office in Scotland, producing what the Prime Minister called "concrete" evidence that these Libyans had anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing?
The Prime Minister challenges us to produce concrete evidence. That is very difficult, and we do not think that the Crown Office is in any better position. Is it not time that those Law Officers made a statement in some sort of democratic forum about the basis of their evidence?

Mr. Newton: As always, because of the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman puts his question, I shall reflect on what he has just asked. As far as I am aware, he did not give me notice of the follow-up to the question that he asked the Prime Minister, so I shall not attempt to answer him off the cuff.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Could we not have a debate on dentistry? The nation's teeth have never been in better condition. It is not a pleasant subject to discuss, there is no need for it and it is ridiculous of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to suggest taking up the time of the House with it.

Mr. Newton: I was left mildly puzzled by the time my hon. Friend had finished his question. I thought that he began by asking for a debate and then demolished the suggestion halfway through.

Mr. Jessel: I said, could we not have a debate?

Mr. Newton: Oh. At any rate, whatever my hon. Friend intended, I agreed with the general thrust of what he was saying.

Mr. Bill Olner: The Leader of the House will be well aware of reports in the newspapers about £5 million payouts for fat cats who are being made redundant from the Treasury. Will he find time to debate that matter? I am sure that many people in my constituency of Nuneaton who are on short-term and part-time contracts find that sum of money extremely offensive.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will note the hon. Gentleman's point. The terms are those approved by Parliament in 1987 and, more recently, under the civil service compensation scheme, which was laid before Parliament last December.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision to discuss in European Standing Committee B on Wednesday the crucial issue of the control of the European Union's external frontiers? Will he do so not only in view of the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, but because it is a matter of widespread public concern? It aroused the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who wrote to my right hon. Friend yesterday alongside seven authentic Conservative colleagues, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
Will my right hon. Friend also give due recognition to the fact that at the European Council meeting, the Home Secretary himself put a scrutiny reserve on that aspect of policy? Does he accept that, at the very least, the public

deserve a debate on the Floor of the House? The matter should not be brushed under the parliamentary carpet by a quiet sitting upstairs in Committee.

Mr. Newton: The very fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last week put a scrutiny reserve on the issue in the way of which my hon. Friend is aware is a sign that the Government are in no way dismissing the importance of the matter. It was based on a misunderstanding, and the document that is being discussed goes considerably wider than the narrow point that the scrutiny reserve touched on last week. I do not think that, even with the best will in the world, I can add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House assure us that when the special Committee that he chairs reaches a decision on the allegations that two hon. Members took money for questions, it will be debated and determined by the whole House? To help that along, will he arrange for a debate on early-day motion 3?
[That this House believes that the amounts of money received from all interests, at present required to be registered in the Register of Members' Interests, should be declared.]
The early-day motion seeks to ensure that the Register of Members' Interests lists not only the firms and trade unions in which hon. Members have an interest, but the sums received.

Mr. Newton: I think that the House, and certainly you, Madam Speaker, would regard it as inappropriate for me to discuss at the Dispatch Box the affairs of the Privileges Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, or what might follow its report, so I will not. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be inappropriate for there to be a debate on the matter at this time, especially in advance of any recommendations that the Nolan committee might make.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support a call for a debate on the idea of English regional government? Many of us would welcome the opportunity to express the opposition of people in the English regions to the idea of being saddled with an expensive extra layer of government simply because a few Scottish Members want to saddle the people of Scotland with a talking shop in Edinburgh. It would give me an opportunity to express the views of the people of Kent who would not like their affairs to be run by a bloated bureaucracy in faraway Reading. More important, would it not give the Opposition the opportunity to tell us which services would be run by the English regions and which would be ripped from local government?

Mr. Newton: My first step might be to put my hon. Friend in touch with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who questioned me earlier, put them together in a room and watch the fun.

Mr. Stephen Timms: Has the Leader of the House seen reports of the remarks made this morning by Mr. Charles Gallagher, the president of the House Builders Federation, expressing his regret at what he sees as the Government's abandonment of home ownership as one of their key values? He referred not only to the tax changes that were mentioned some minutes ago


by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) but to the remarks made recently by the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, which apparently distanced the Government from their goal of increased home ownership. May we have a debate next week on home ownership so that we can establish what the Government's aspirations are and assess whether, as Mr. Gallagher suggests, home owners and aspiring home owners would be better off under Labour policies?

Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, if people believe that, they will believe anything. As for the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I was not hitherto aware of the remarks to which he refers, but it is clear from what he said that they are based on a profound misunderstanding.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As, on "News at Ten" last night, a director of Railtrack with responsibility for safety virtually confirmed that automatic train protection will not be installed across the entire rail network, which breaks a firm commitment that the Government have given the House and the country for the past six years; and as the departing British Rail chairman, Sir Bob Reid, has predicted that franchisees will become bankrupt if the rail privatisation plans go ahead—indeed, he claimed that he personally would prefer to put his money into a butcher's shop—can we have an urgent debate on the grounds of safety, especially in view of the confusion reigning over what the Government's transport policy with regard to the railways is and, indeed, whether they have one?

Mr. Newton: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering the advice received from the Health and Safety Commission and from Railtrack, and will make an announcement in due course. Secondly, while many attempted interpretations have been placed on the interview with Sir Bob Reid, he made his support for privatisation very clear.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on early-day motion 774?
[That this House expresses its disquiet at the continued domination of prominent Tories and Freemasons in appointments to top jobs in the National Health Service in Wales as witnessed by the appointment of Derek Morgan, President of the Bridgend Constituency Conservative Association to be Chairman of the largest NHS Trust in Wales, and of David Crosby, prominent Tory and

Freemason to be Chairman of the Cardiff Community Healthcare Trust; recalls the ringing declarations of the Secretary of State for Wales and his junior Health Minister that these posts were being advertised and would be appointed on merit only; but notes that these two appointments are examples yet again of the same old names and the same old games; and consider that the breaking up of the NHS into several dozen businesses in this way has enormous attractions to this government in diverting tax payers money into the pocket of prominent Tory supporters to give sustenance to the party after its contemptuous rejection at the ballot box in the Islwyn by-election.]
The motion deals with the appointment of Mr. David Crosby as chairman of the Cardiff Community Healthcare trust, when he is a prominent Conservative and a prominent freemason. Will the Leader of the House make available information on how many other freemasons have been appointed to quangos both in Wales and elsewhere? There is growing evidence that they are infecting the national health service especially. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that packing quangos with Conservatives is bad enough, but packing them with freemasons is positively sinister?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I shall seek to respond to the sort of question that the hon. Gentleman has asked in the way in which he asked it, beyond saying that it seems to me that the right course is to appoint people with the appropriate qualifications to do the job that is required.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Given reports today that Sir Robin Butler has found that the Secretary of State for Health breached Government rules on propriety because civil servants seemed to want to dash out and publish the right hon. Lady's speeches in Government-funded magazines, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the politicisation of the civil service, including the use of taxpayers' money for Tory propaganda?

Mr. Newton: I understand that Sir Robin said that he was satisfied that the purpose of the article was to communicate to NHS staff a policy statement relevant to their work, but he thought that the form of the article laid it open to the interpretation that it was publicising a party political event. I am sure that that was not intended. In any event, the Department of Health has assured Sir Robin that it will exercise rigorous scrutiny of such publications in future, and that is plainly right.

Points of Order

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday, I took up with you the issue that had been raised by the apparent purloining of papers belonging to a Member, which were subsequently quoted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in the debate on the Gas Bill. I say "apparent" because I am in no position to make an objective determination of the facts, which is why I raise the matter with you. The same point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). You were good enough to say that you would examine the facts and make a statement in due time in response to the points of order raised with you. I was wondering whether you might now be in a position to do so.

Madam Speaker: I did have inquiries made. I understand that departmental documents relating to the debate on the Gas Bill were found by the tape machine in the Library Corridor. They were not stolen.
I deprecate the fact that the papers were not returned to the Department right away. Instead, Members speaking in the debate on the Bill used sections of the material in an attempt either to embarrass the Minister or to tease him. It is up to the hon. Member to determine the reasons for that. I am sure that he will agree with me that the lesson to be learned is that Ministers should ensure that they or their officials are not so careless in future as to leave confidential documents lying around.

Mr. Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No. I have given a ruling.

Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the Minister concerned notice of it.
During my Adjournment debate on 22 February—the subject was the Forth rail bridge—the Minister misinformed the House due to wrong information about an inspection and a report subsequently prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on structural and engineering matters. It appears now that there was no such report and I have received a letter to that effect from the Minister. The findings were based on a 1992-93 report by British Rail before the new painting regime took place. That is an important facet of the argument. My hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were accused of scaremongering in respect of the state of the bridge. Madam Speaker, will you investigate the matter and seek an apology from the Minister on our behalf?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of the detail of his point of order. He merely let me know that he was going to raise a point of order on the matter. The matter is difficult, but I believe that it is not a point of order for me. There is obviously a difference of opinion and I advise the hon. Gentleman that he must pursue it with the Minister concerned. I am sure that he has ample ways of attempting to do that and that he will do so.

BILL PRESENTED

MEDICAL (PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE)

Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. Gerald Malone and Mr. Tom Sackville, presented a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 to make provision relating to the professional performance of registered medical practitioners and the voluntary removal of names from the register of medical practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation—CDC—is a statutory corporation which was established in 1948 to assist overseas countries in the development of their economies by investing in financially viable and developmentally sound business enterprises. The corporation provides loans, equity and management services in a wide range of economic sectors, operating on a quasi-commercial basis outside Government channels. It enables us to provide direct assistance to the private sectors in developing countries.
Although now called the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the CDC was established by this Parliament. The members of the corporation are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and it is funded by the United Kingdom Government.
At present, the CDC operates in 52 countries, 39 of which are members of the Commonwealth. A Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the CDC in 1992 concluded that it provided a particularly valuable form of assistance to economies in developing countries.
Last year, the CDC invested around £240 million, a record level. Eighty per cent. of approvals were in the poorest countries, above the target agreed with Ministers. Its total investment portfolio stands at over £1.6 billion.
The corporation's task is to use the disciplines and practices of the private sector in order to promote sustainable development in countries. It invests only when projects are expected to make a positive contribution to national development; participates only when its involvement adds value; and structures its investments according to commercial criteria. The corporation actively seeks to improve the links with British and other private sector overseas investors, so that it can build on its traditional role as a catalyst for mobilising international finance alongside its own investment.
The new focus in developing countries on private sector-led development is opening up new opportunities for the CDC, both in new and traditional areas. It might be helpful if I briefly give some examples of the range and scope of the corporation's activities.
In Zambia, in October last year the CDC took a majority shareholding in Chilanga Cement Limited, the largest cement producer in Zambia and an essential component of the Zambian economy. The corporation has management responsibility for a major programme of rehabilitating and enhancing the productive capacity of that company. Notably, 30 per cent. of the company's shares are to be sold to local private

investors, marking an important stage in the Zambian privatisation programme and the return of an active capital market in Lusaka. It is ironic to note that the CDC first become a majority shareholder in Chilanga in 1949, and has now returned to this position after a long period in which the company has been run by a Zambian state-owned company.
In Uganda, the Development Finance Company of Uganda—DFCU—has the CDC as a leading shareholder. The demand for asset finance in Uganda is high. Many businesses are growing rapidly and require quick access to finance for new plant and equipment. The corporation and DFCU have promoted the Uganda Leasing Company which opened for business in January. The corporation will provide 21 per cent. of the equity and a loan to the new company. The managing director has been seconded from the CDC.
Because of Uganda's history, there is a low level of savings, and many would-be entrepreneurs are frustrated by being unable to raise finance for their projects. The Development Finance Company of Uganda has now set up its own venture capital fund. It has enabled mortgage business for house construction and house purchase to expand, and with it the prospect of respectable profits and regular dividends.
The DFCU has nine investments in parastatal companies made in the 1960s, and has thus been well placed to play an important role in Uganda's privatisation programme. The DFCU was centrally involved in the privatisation of East Africa Distilleries, in which it had a 23 per cent. stake. In 1992, the DFCU and the other minority shareholders persuaded the Ugandan Government to sell its 51 per cent. stake to International Distillers and Vintners, which has taken over the management and turned the company round in a matter of two years.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Minister a question? I am not trying to be especially mischievous; I genuinely want to know the answer. He will know that my hon. Friends were deeply opposed to privatisation of the CDC, but why did the Government decide not to privatise it in the end? What were the pressures on the Government not to privatise, and what interests did they have in mind when they made that decision?

Mr. Baldry: We considered that it would be far better for the CDC to remain in the public sector. We considered all the options, and that was the conclusion to which we came.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why?

Mr. Baldry: Because we believed that that was in the best interests of the CDC and those whom it seeks to serve.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is just a general response. In principle, we do not believe that the CDC should be privatised, but there must be reasons why the Government have come to the same conclusion. There must have been some argument in the Department, and the case put against privatisation must have been


overwhelmingly convincing to Ministers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us something of what the debate in the Department was about?

Mr. Baldry: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is being mischievous after all, or whether he is teasing. Unlike the Labour party, which has a dogmatic opposition to the word "privatisation", we are not driven by dogma. The CDC serves a valuable purpose, and it was obviously right that there came a time when we considered whether it should not remain in the public sector. However, having regard to the particular work that the CDC does, we concluded that it would be better for it to remain in the public sector.
Also in Uganda, the CDC and the International Finance Corporation, with other companies, are developing Uganda's first cellular telephone network, covering 15,000 subscribers in Entebbe, Kampala, Jinja and Tororo. Using the most advanced digital cellular technology, the company will provide high-quality digital telecommunications services, including mobile communication and interconnection to the Uganda Post and Telecommunications Corporation fixed-line network and international gateway.
In India, the CDC has made available a £25 million loan to the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. The HDFC was the first housing finance corporation of its kind in India and has been a leader in developing that sector, with currently 387,000 borrowers and 210,000 depositors. Seventy-five per cent. of its business is with individual home buyers and, with the CDC's financial backing, the HDFC is continuing to expand its business as opportunities grow with the liberalisation of the Indian economy.
In Sri Lanka, the CDC has approved a second loan of US$30 million to the National Development bank to finance the expansion of its existing operations in term lending, leasing and other financing for predominantly private sector industrial clients in Sri Lanka. Overall demand for term finance has been growing at an average of 30 per cent., and is expected to continue in that way.
The CDC's first investment in South Africa is scheduled to be made through the establishment of a fund to make equity and quasi-equity investments in franchise operations mainly owned or operated by previously disadvantaged groups. Nedbank investment bank will be contracted to provide management and technical services to the fund management company, and the CDC's involvement will be purely equity of nearly £2 million.
Throughout the world, the CDC is investing and helping developing countries to promote their economies.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The list of projects that the Minister has given is very creditable, and will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
As the Minister knows, the Prime Minister recently returned from a visit to the middle east, where I understand that he visited both Gaza and the west bank. As far as the Minister is aware, is there any reason in

principle why the CDC should not support projects in those areas? If there is no such reason, is he aware of any such proposals?

Mr. Baldry: In principle, there is no objection to the CDC's operating in any part of the world. In practice, when it wishes to operate in a new country, it asks the permission of Ministers. As far as I know, it has made no application or proposal in relation to Gaza or the west bank; if it did so, any such application or proposal would be considered on its merits.
The CDC has recently been granted permission to operate in a number of countries. There is nothing ideological about our attitude: we want to ensure that the CDC is put to the best possible use wherever it operates.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, when the CDC makes an equity investment in some enterprise in the developing world, it is every bit as rigorous and aggressive in insisting that that enterprise is run on commercial lines, that opportunities for efficiency gains are taken and that waste and overmanning are eliminated—and in resisting local political pressures to adopt a non-commercial course—as a genuine private sector investor would be when shareholders' money was at stake?

Mr. Baldry: Yes. As the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs discovered when it examined the CDC's work, it has an impressive record of ensuring that its money is put to the best possible use, and that the companies and equities in which it invests use that money in the best possible way. I know of no CDC scheme that has been the subject of public criticism, either in the country concerned or in this country.
In the past, the CDC's resources have been found almost entirely through concessional loans from the British Government. The returns made on the proceeds of its investments have been available for further investment. In 1993, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced that the CDC would no longer receive net new loans from Government, but would no longer be required to pay interest on new and existing loans. As a result of the repayment of outstanding interest and capital on loans and other realisations, an increasing amount of new investment is being made, at decreasing cost to the aid programme.

Miss Emma Nicholson: My hon. Friend has been describing a British success story—the story of an organisation which, as I think he will agree, has successfully transformed itself from a colonial supporting organisation to an organisation that is worldwide, or at least which operates in many interesting and important parts of the world.
Will my hon. Friend clear up two points? First, is he confident that the loans straitjacket will be sufficiently loose for the CDC to be able to borrow effectively and support its work without cost to the British taxpayer? Secondly, how can we more effectively promote the CDC's image internationally? This success story—this British-grown international finance corporation—is very little known outside its client base.

Mr. Baldry: The answer to the first question is yes. As for the second, in the countries that I visit—


Pakistan, the Dominican Republic and other countries where the CDC operates—its work is widely recognised and appreciated. People realise that it is an instrument with which the British Government are helping to develop and sustain private enterprise in those countries. It has a high standing, which is also to the credit of the United Kingdom.
Although the interest rate was lowered to nominal levels in 1994, a full interest waiver for the CDC requires an amendment to the existing Act, which is proposed in the Bill. The Bill also recognises the CDC's continuing need for external borrowing. Last December, the CDC obtained funds from a source other than the British Government—in this instance, the European investment bank.
It is also exploring the possibility of borrowing from other lenders. Its total level of borrowings is already very close to the existing statutory limit of £850 million, and an increase in that ceiling is essential to ensure the corporation's future financial health.
Counted within the limit is the borrowing of CDC's overseas subsidiaries, which will increase roughly in line with the overall increase in its portfolio. The Bill proposes an increase initially to £1,100 million, and then, following the further agreement of Parliament through an affirmative resolution, to an overall ceiling of £1,500 million. That should be sufficient to provide a firm basis for the CDC's future investment programmes well into the next century.
It is a reflection of the CDC's success that the overwhelming majority of new investments will be financed from the returns on existing investments. In 1993, equity realisations of £27 million were made, allowing an overall level of £48 million to be transferred to reserves. It remains the intention of the CDC to unlock the very substantial level of assets held in some long-standing investments so as to secure resources for further expansion of its work in developing countries.

Mr. Tony Worthington: There is no real controversy about the Bill. Any controversy is about whether it goes far enough. If this is a British success story, why is such a marginal increase being made in the resources which are available? I am confident that those resources will be inadequate in the pretty near future. Why are not the Government backing the success story more fully?

Mr. Baldry: With respect, only a member of the Labour party could describe an increase in borrowing limits from £850 million to £1,500 as marginal. It is a substantial increase in the CDC's borrowing powers. Certainly, the CDC is confident that the increase will enable it to operate well into the next century.
The CDC opened a new office in South Africa last year. This year, it plans to open offices in Mozambique and Uganda. The CDC has helped to establish a venture capital fund in Tanzania, which it also manages. It provides risk capital for local businesses, and complements efforts to establish a local equity market.
In South Africa, even with its far more highly developed capital market, development capital funds for small entrepreneurs can still be very difficult to obtain. Following the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime

Minister last September, the CDC is announcing this month an investment of £9 million in a new development capital fund in Johannesburg.
Clause 1 of the Bill increases the statutory limits on the total amount outstanding in respect of sums borrowed or guaranteed by the corporation from £850 million to £1,100 million, with provision for an increase by order for a sum not exceeding £1,500 million.
Clause 2 provides the powers necessary to ensure that the terms of existing aid loans for the CDC should become interest free.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to determine the remuneration of members of the corporation. The Bill makes no change to the Secretary of State's powers to appoint members of the corporation.
Clause 4 gives effect to the repeals set out in the schedule, and clause 5 makes provision for the title and extent of the Bill.
The House last reviewed and agreed new borrowing limits for the CDC well over a decade ago in 1982. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed then on the value of the CDC's work for developing countries and for Britain.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way before he concludes?

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the House will again agree to endorse the work of the CDC, to place it on a sound financial footing to carry it into the 21st century and to enable it to continue its excellent work in promoting the private sector's investment and jobs in developing countries. I commend the Bill to the House.

Miss Joan Lestor: I welcome the opportunity to express general support for the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and to congratulate the Minister on the ise way in which he went through the clauses. I am afraid that he went through them so quickly that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was unable to intervene. I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate.
Not a great deal divides us on the Bill, but I should like to raise one or two important points. As the Minister said, from its inception under a Labour Government to the present day, the CDC has provided much-needed investment in the poorest countries of the world. In 1993, 72.9 per cent. of total investment went to the poorest countries, of which almost 30 per cent. was allocated to sub-Saharan Africa. Nobody could possibly disagree with that.
Initially, that investment was concentrated in former colonial countries, which subsequently became members of the Commonwealth. Last year, when things had to be changed, as the Minister said, permission had to be sought and was granted for CDC involvement to extend to El Salvador and, indeed, to South Africa—countries, as we would all agree, in need of, earning and deserving the support of this country and of the CDC.
In such countries, where inward investment is essential but private investors are often very hesitant, the CDC carries out its vital work: pump-priming local economies, meeting the needs of some of the poorest


people of the world for vital infrastructure, contributing to economic and political stability, and sending out positive signals for the rest of the world to follow, which I hope is especially true in the case of South Africa, Mozambique and others.
As the Minister has said and the reports have told us, the CDC is not only effective but has been very efficient in the years that it has operated. In the past, its investment funding has been largely self-generating, supplemented by long-term, low-interest loans. The Minister mentioned the Chilanga cement project in Zambia. I am pleased to tell the House that I shall be visiting that project next week when I visit Zambia. The CDC offered me the opportunity to see the project, and I look forward to it very much indeed.
In the financial year 1994-95, there was a net flow from the CDC to the Government of £7 million and, at the same time, £1,677 million was invested. Final audited figures, I understand, for 1994 are not yet available, but the 1993 figures show that the net cash injection from the Government represented less than 5 per cent. of the level of new investment and 0.5 per cent. of external aid spending.
This Bill is interesting not so much for what it says as for what some of it fails to say. We can all support the move to raise the CDC's borrowing limits, given its good track record and the enduring needs of developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. I am not so sure, however, about the recommendations to remove Treasury controls over salaries, pensions and allowances.
I do not doubt that that will result in substantial gains for some members of the corporation—an outcome synonymous with the privatisation process. Indeed, I am sure that I was not alone in thinking that the CDC was at some point being lined up as a candidate for privatisation, on the grounds that it would give it the commercial freedom that it seemed to be seeking. I therefore welcomed the Foreign Secretary's statement in May ruling out privatisation.
The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did not make it terribly clear why privatisation was ruled out. There was a recognition that a privatised CDC would have aims, objectives and a financial structure inconsistent with its development role. From reading the report, that seems why privatisation did not go ahead, and I am very glad that it did not.
In the Minister's winding-up speech, would he tell me why the argument that the CDC could obtain the commercial freedom it sought without privatisation was in contrast to the argument and action over the Crown Agents, which has just been debated in another place, where it was argued that only by the removal of the Crown Agents from the public sector could they have the greater financial freedom that they sought and needed to expand?
I find the argument inconsistent. What was the difference? The Minister, in all fairness, has not explained the reasons. I agree with the Minister and the report that it is inconsistent to deem that privatisation could rule out, hamper or in some way limit the aims

and objectives of the CDC. It would be interesting to know why the Crown Agents were treated rather differently.
Speculation about the future role of the CDC continues to grow. This Bill does not answer all my concerns, which were fuelled by recommendations in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1993, the CDC's own five-yearly review and various odd comments from Ministers. Reference was made in the review to the
wider world in which the CDC now operates".
During debates in this House in 1992, before her elevation to another place, the Minister for Overseas Development mentioned
the expanding role which I hope it"—
the CDC—
will have in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union … There is nothing to stop CDC work in eastern Europe provided there is sensible risk".—[Official Report,; Vol. , c..]
I hope that any possible involvement in that direction will not be at the expense of our commitment to Commonwealth countries. Will the Minister give us that assurance? It is particularly important, given the Government's endorsement in 1993 of the quinquennial review recommendation to drop the operating target for the proportion of investments in the Commonwealth.
I also ask the Minister to assure the House that any such initiative will be funded separately, and that the poor of South Africa, Mozambique or wherever the CDC intends to operate will not be paying for investment programmes in the former Soviet Union. That is a concern that we all share about the aid programme, and the widening operation of the CDC.
In some ways, this Bill is unfinished business, and we will be looking again at the role of the CDC, especially as it expands. There are many areas of investment in which it is prohibited from action—the provision of schools, hospitals and colleges, for example—and although I am aware that it is not, strictly speaking, an aid organisation, the social spin-off of projects should be one of the guiding factors determining their acceptability. Surely that is not too much to ask.
The Government's track record on aid and development is increasingly tarnished, and typified by scandal and mischief, from the misuse of aid funds for the Pergau dam to the wrecking of the Lomé negotiations and the deterioration in the aid budget. While it does not redress the balance, the sound reputation of the CDC makes a different contribution to aid and development projects. I trust that Ministers will bear that in mind during the coming months.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I will not take up more than a few moments of the time of the Minister and the House, because there is such broad unanimity on the Bill. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and the Commonwealth Development Corporation on this tremendous British success story.
I am particularly interested in the expansion of the CDC from Commonwealth countries into other needy countries worldwide. Of course, it was a lapsus linguae on the part of the Opposition spokesman on aid, the


hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), to mention Mozambique, which I do not believe is a member of the Commonwealth. I appreciate her view that the poorest of the poor should not suffer with expansion in eastern Europe, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Russia.
The CDC has broadened its remit very dramatically indeed, which is to be welcomed because private investment in countries in difficult economic circumstances cannot be bounded by old colonial boundaries, however attractive that may seem historically. I very much hope that the CDC will investigate China and Russia, and I want it to find ways to help some of the poorer countries in the middle east, such as Yemen. The investment in Johannesburg in the wake of the abolition of apartheid is going to be one of the most wonderful developments, and is very exciting indeed.
This Bill will bring some modern structures into the CDC. I welcome the move, for example, to have the chief executive on the board. Like the hon. Member for Eccles, I welcome the fact that we will look more sensibly at salary levels.
I want to consider enlarging the British Government's publicity machine for the CDC. I have been fortunate to visit a number of CDC projects in operation in India and parts of Africa and, as someone who has been to some of the poorer areas of the world, it has been a great joy for me to see an organisation so deftly picking up investment opportunities, staying with a company while it begins to flourish and then withdrawing.
No commercial organisation could ever carry out that sort of operation. After all, the Commonwealth Development Corporation is asked by the Government only to wash its face, not to make a profit, and any profit is ploughed back into the organisation. It is an altruistic attitude, and it is right and proper for a national Government body to achieve that.
I regard the Commonwealth Development Corporation as the silent partner of the Overseas Development Administration's major humanitarian aid effort, and all I ask the Minister is that we should somehow discard that over-humble attitude. We should stop it being the silent partner and try to get its wonderful developmental work known much more widely among the British people.
After all, its work is sponsored through the taxpayer—or is it? Will the Minister assure us that the borrowing levels will not be inhibited by the Treasury? Internationally, the wider borrowing requirements take a burden off the British taxpayer while assisting people in poorer developing countries who need loans, development and, above all, British expertise, which is carried out superbly as only the CDC seems able to do.
I ask the Minister again: will he please think hard about publicity about the CDC? It is a wonderful organisation. It is the United Kingdom's home-grown international finance corporation. All I ask is that we should shout a little louder on its behalf.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am glad to see that we are debating this Commonwealth Bill because I thought that this year we would debate a different Commonwealth Bill, which

would rule out the Commonwealth Institute. I am pleased to see that the Government have backed off from the Commonwealth Institute Bill, because they would never have got it through this House or the House of Lords. I congratulate the Government on recognising more than they did in the past the value of the Commonwealth.
This could be a golden age for the Commonwealth, now that we have got rid of some of the problems of the past, like apartheid in South Africa and Baroness Thatcher, and moved on so that some good can come out of Commonwealth initiatives. I know that the CDC covers a wider area than just the Commonwealth, but it is good to see Commonwealth initiatives; I was particularly pleased about the current initiative in Sierra Leone.
The CDC is well thought of and extremely successful. The central problem remains, however, of why more is not done to bring it to the attention of the British public and expand it more fully. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked a good question, which has not yet been answered. I hope that the Minister will find time later to say why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seems to be giving the CDC such a modest push. When other small achievements are trumpeted, those of the CDC are not.
May I start by making a couple of quibbles about the CDC? In its annual report, it appears to be a London-based quangocracy of some kind. The board appears to lack balance, and I hope that the Government will take that into account when considering how it is developed. There is an absence of women among senior members of the board. That is a major weakness, given that development in many parts of the world is led by women. Their perspective should be included on the board.
I wonder how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assembles the board of the CDC. Judging by the annual report, it simply has a whistle down the road to the Overseas Development Institute or Chatham House, and says, "Who have you got here?" or goes around its pals in the banking world. I have nothing against the ODI and Chatham House, as I support both organisations, but the CDC board seems to he stuck in a bit of a rut, as it includes no one from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
Do those parts of the Commonwealth not get a look in when it comes to appointments to the board? Much of the best development is now done by major British non-governmental organisations operating in the same parts of the world as the CDC, but they are not represented on the CDC's board.
I also wonder about the CDC's right-wing tilt. Not only does the text of its annual report have such a tilt but it is the only annual report I have ever seen in which the pictures of board members are tilted to the right as well.
More seriously, the chairman's report on page 8 is worrying, as it says:
CDC's prospects are aided by the wide-spread acceptance of IMF/World Bank led policy reform".
Where is that widespread acceptance? This is one of the consequences when a country does not send its Prime Minister to the social summit, because he and all those associated with him get out of touch.


The summit communiqué, which was agreed at the social summit, says:
Programmes drawn up by institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, designed to restructure the economies of developing countries, should take social factors more into account to avoid disruption".
I hope that the CDC realises that it is not accurate to say that World bank and IMF programmes are widely accepted. Even the World bank and the IMF admit that they have made major errors in their structural adjustment programmes. I hope that that matter will be brought to the CDC's attention.
That apart, we agree that the CDC is well thought of in the House. It has achieved a great deal and is living proof that good-quality industrial and commercial development can be carried out in the most unpromising circumstances. It is extremely good that the CDC should be attempting initiatives in some countries in Africa where it is currently operating—like Sierra Leone and Sudan. I doubt whether it is operating in some of those countries, as nothing industrial or commercial is likely to be going on in Liberia at present, although the annual report says it is.
The Government do not make enough use of the CDC, and the major question that I wish to raise is whether the Bill goes far enough, in terms not only of its borrowing requirements but of commercial freedom. Will the Minister clear up that matter? Is the CDC allowed to borrow commercially if its wants to? If not, why not?
That is basically the problem with the Post Office. The Labour party believes that some organisations in the public sector could be given more freedom. The CDC is trying to achieve the maximum possible economic and social development, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and it would be tragic if such development could not proceed successfully, because the CDC was held up by Treasury rules and Government dogma, which currently prevents the Post Office from being liberated.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to reply to that point during the course of his contribution? I am not being mischievous again, but it would help the debate if the Minister would deal with the specific point that my hon. Friend put, which is extremely important and repeatedly raised with us by development organisations.

Mr. Worthington: It is the crucial point. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the CDC says to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does it believe that it has enough commercial freedom? I am willing for the Minister to intervene.
Does the CDC believe that the Bill before us is the one that will enable it to do its job to the best of its capabilities? I am keeping going to give the Minister every opportunity to answer. Does the CDC have the freedom to enable it to do valuable work in the

developing world to the best of its ability, or is it at all hamstrung by Government restrictions? Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Mr. Baldry: I will answer later.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. It would help our debate. This is a debate.

Mr. Worthington: My other questions are about zones of operation. Where is the CDC allowed to operate? There is a strange part in the annual report about countries in which the CDC is allowed to operate. That is directly under the Minister's control. What agreements have been reached with the CDC about specific zones of operation?
I was unfortunately called out during part of the Minister's speech, and he may have discussed the matter, but we need complete clarity about central and eastern Europe. Will the CDC be allowed to operate in central and eastern Europe, or will it be restricted? Will we be told whether it has been decided that at present the CDC should not be allowed to operate in central and eastern Europe? I do not oppose it operating there, because I believe that the CDC could do a valuable job, but what decision has been taken on that matter?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ms Lestor) said, we would not want money that would otherwise contribute to economic development in sub-Saharan Africa to go into central and eastern Europe. That is not to say that the CDC does not have a role in that region—I think it does—but I do not think that the Minister mentioned that crucial subject.
Will the Minister also clarify some matters in relation to South Africa? In the most recent annual report accessible to us, we are told that the CDC is not allowed to operate in South Africa. I am sure that that has changed. South Africa has been a Commonwealth country and, since it is the key country in that part of the world—the Minister mentioned it in his speech—the CDC will operate there. On what scale will it operate? I referred, perhaps wrongly, to a marginal increase. It is not a marginal increase, but I do not want the CDC to be hamstrung. To what extent will the CDC be fully encouraged to do the work that it would want to do in South Africa? That is another key question.
Will the Minister specifically say whether the CDC will be allowed to operate in the middle east? The Prime Minister has just returned from Gaza. The greatest need in Gaza and on the west bank is for economic development, so that the people rapidly realise that change is occurring. The skill of the CDC is that it reaches an area before the private sector is fully committed, and Gaza and the west bank are such areas. Once again, I ask the Minister: what is the ruling of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about whether the CDC will be able to operate in that region?
There are several important questions, one of which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. The Minister has not answered it. My hon. Friend mentioned structure and commercial freedom, and asked whether the rules that are laid down now are the right ones for the CDC.
I want assurances from the Minister that the CDC and the Government are aware of the widespread questions about World bank and International Monetary


Fund policies that are regarded as having been deeply flawed. I should not like the CDC to be in a time warp in which it would say that they were fully acceptable.
I should like the Minister to answer the geographical questions but, as he will gather, there is general Opposition support for the CDC.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As everyone knows, the Bill will receive a Second Reading, and I hope that it will pass all its remaining stages this evening. The Second Reading debate gives us the opportunity to mention several general matters concerning the CDC, as well as certain matters with which the Bill is not expressly concerned but which are none the less relevant.
As was said at the outset, it is interesting that the CDC has retained its place in the public sector, on the ground, as I understand it, that to be there is more consistent with its development role. That shows, to the satisfaction of some of us in the House, that at least there are some bounds to the Government's doctrinaire approach to privatisation. In many respects, I have always thought that that was a pretty arid argument, because the issue must surely be the effectiveness of an organisation rather than its place in one sector or the other.
It is important to realise that a large contribution to the new investments made by the CDC arises from surpluses and recycled funds. That puts a large premium on good management and sound decision-making. We can have some confidence in that regard. The Minister has referred to the 1992 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, to point to its conclusion—that the help provided by the CDC is especially valuable to the economies of developing countries.
In another important element, the report recognised the competence and dedication of the staff of the corporation. It is also worth noticing that the operating costs of the CDC are very low, and bear favourable comparison with other similar organisations.
Like the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I am worried about the issue of areas of operation. Indeed, during the period of the hon. Gentleman's enforced absence during the Minister's speech, I drew the Minister's attention to the issue of Gaza and the west bank. It seems to me—I think there is some recognition of that in the policy that attaches to the CDC—that it is thought to be legitimate that the CDC should operate in a region where some element of the interest of the United Kingdom arises.
Having visited Israel shortly before Christmas last year, and having continued since then to try to keep a monitoring eye on events in the middle east, and especially that part of the middle east, I am convinced that the success of the peace process established in the middle east, and especially involving the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Israeli Government, will largely depend on the extent to which the economic aspirations of many people in Gaza and the west bank can be recognised and fulfilled.
The Prime Minister's visit this week is timely and appropriate. I understand from some of the reports that he took with him many people with commercial interests, one of whom at least, I understand, said on

the aeroplane on the way back that he would find it perfectly possible to work with any sensible Government, including, apparently, a Labour Government. Whether the Prime Minister thinks that the fare of that member of the party was justified is another matter entirely.
As I said, the success of the peace process will depend on the extent to which there is economic development. I cannot conceive of a region in which we have greater political interest at the moment than the middle east.
Having raised that case and indulged in what one might fairly call special pleading in relation to it, I am immediately conscious of the argument by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that those with interests in the third world, and especially non-governmental organisations there, have a legitimate anxiety that expansion or possible expansion into eastern Europe will be at the expense of Africa.
Do the additional borrowing powers that the Bill now affords to the CDC suggest an intention that profits from impoverished parts of Africa will be used to finance new investments in eastern and central Europe? If that were to be the case, many hon. Members on both sides of the House would consider that an inappropriate way for the CDC to proceed.
Many hon. Members recognise the CDC's potential role in central and eastern Europe, but as has already been said, surely that should be done through the provision of additional funds—new money. It should not be done at the expense of other areas, particularly Africa, where the CDC has been traditionally active. The Minister properly referred to that when he listed a number of admirable CDC projects.
I have no criticism of clauses 1 and 2, which are perfectly sensible. Clause 3 relates to remuneration, pensions and allowances. I am pleased to note that they are to be determined by the Secretary of State and not by a committee of the Confederation of British Industry.
We will want to know from the Minister what Secretary of State expects to be the outcome of the new flexibility. Does he expect the total cost to go up or down? The word "flexibility" is often used to justify some change in policy. Those of us who have regard to public transport know that "flexibility" almost always means a reduction in service. When one talks about wages or the income of manual workers, "flexibility" almost always means a reduction in those wages or income. When used in the context of executives and board members, "flexibility" almost always means an increase.
Somewhere within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, someone must have done a calculation of the financial consequences of passing clause 3 into law. I should like to know precisely what estimate the Secretary of State has made of the consequences of doing that.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, by the end of 1993, the corporation was involved in more than 340 businesses, which provided, on a calculation, several hundred thousand jobs. The nature of those projects means that they often extend over 10 or even 20 years. They are therefore long-term investments in the economies in which they are placed.


We must ask ourselves whether some constraints have been placed on the activities of that success story to which it would have perhaps been preferable that the Bill had turned its attention. In particular, can the Minister tell me why the CDC continues to be liable to United Kingdom corporation tax, when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs endorsed the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that it should no longer be subject to that tax?
The Committee pointed out that, were it not subject to that tax, two things would flow from that. First, additional funds would be available by virtue of the remission of corporation tax. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the CDC's ability to negotiate favourable tax status in host countries would be enhanced. That would have a multiplier effect on the investments by the CDC.
The other element of finance that certainly requires consideration and explanation is the application of nil net funding and the least-cost rule. What consequences will they have on the CDC's ability to fulfil its responsibilities? To turn the matter round and put it in a more practical way, what additional amounts could be raised for the activities of that success story if neither nil net funding nor the least-cost rule were to be applied to the corporation?
The Bill is narrow in scope, but it leaves a number of important questions unanswered. I hope that we will have an early chance to return to them, because one thing is certain: as the debate has demonstrated so far, the corporation commands the attention and support of the House. If its success is such as has been justified in the debate, surely it is entitled to a greater freedom and an enhanced role.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I should like to concentrate on one specific matter, which I hope that the Minister will be able to address.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)—regretfully, he is not in his place now—intervened on the Minister and asked for categorical assurances that any investment entered into by the CDC would be subject to the most rigorous financial safeguards. In essence, he believed that, when considering an investment, the CDC should act like a private company, which has responsibilities to its shareholders. The Minister gave that categorical assurance.
We all agree that the resources given to the CDC are less than those that, ideally, we would like to give it. The only strictures governing the CDC that seem to matter relate to finance. Why do we not also issue strictures about the gross abuse of human rights that takes place around the world, and particularly in countries that are in desperate need of development and inward investment?
There is something illogical in judging the value of the individual nation state exclusively on the lowest possible wages that it is prepared to accept and the longest possible hours that it will demand its workers

to work. That may balance the books according to accountants, but it neglects the greatest resource of any nation state—its people.
Developing nations are increasingly guilty of abusing human rights associated with work and the development of industry. Any kind of democratically based argument against impositions from central Government may preclude the introduction of human rights, but brings in its train human rights abuses. The nation state Government argue that such criticism of their action goes to the basis of the economic development of their country.
The abuse of human rights has meant that trade union leaders have been murdered and abused, many of them women. Newspapers have been closed down, and journalists have disappeared. Writers who speak out against the governing regime are forced into hiding in their own countries, or even flee their own countries to find sanctuary abroad.
One of my constituents has been the victim of the current gross abuse of human rights in a Commonwealth country, Nigeria. I refer to the daughter of Chief Abiola, who, as we know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will relate that example to something to do with the CDC. If not, she is not in order.

Ms Jackson: I began my argument by saying that the Government have issued certain strictures which relate exclusively to the funding and financial structure of the CDC.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened most attentively to the hon. Lady, and she was about to refer to an individual case. That case must relate to something to do with the CDC; otherwise, those comments are not in order.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I might continue my argument a little further, I believe that it is equally important that implementation of the necessary CDC projects are governed just as much by respect for human rights in the third world as they are by financial considerations. I must admit that I had intended to cite another individual's case—that of Ken Saro Wiwa, another Nigerian who has suffered gross human rights abuses from his Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a debate between the Chair and the hon. Lady. There are two Commonwealth debates today, and it would be entirely appropriate for the hon. Lady to raise individual cases affecting the Commonwealth in the second debate. We are on the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. I hope that she will bear that in mind.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but rather disappointed that it is impossible for you and me to have a debate on this matter. I shall certainly consider what you have said, and perhaps redraft my arguments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: One of the principal arguments in the development movement over the years is that, before British support is provided, whether


through the CDC or via the Overseas Development Administration directly to overseas countries or corporations, there should be greater consideration of human rights. There is an argument that one should not allocate money to countries in which there are abuses of human rights. In the context of the individual cases about which my hon. Friend obviously wishes to speak, she might care to reflect on whether there should be CDC support for the countries in which those cases have occurred.

Ms Jackson: That was to be the main thrust of the argument that I was beginning to develop. We have established that there is limited funding for the CDC and for other development agencies. I do not think that any country can claim to have an absolutely clean slate on abuses of human rights, but it should be a prerequisite that no sizeable funding, and certainly no pump priming, should be provided to countries in which there are such abuses.
In Nigeria, pump priming has led to increased development of the oil industry.

Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend's example of Nigeria is particularly appropriate. I understand that the CDC is no longer putting new investment into Nigeria, because of the human rights abuses of people such as Ken Saro Wiwa and Chief Abiola. Such abuses have convinced the CDC that Nigeria is not an appropriate place in which to invest money. That is to the enormous detriment of the largest black African country, which is being denied CDC resources because of its Government.

Ms Jackson: That is the essential point: it is the people in such countries who are suffering most grievously. As my hon. Friend has said, the Nigerian Government have been found repugnant by the CDC and by others, because of the way that they have totally ignored every kind of democratic principle, and have overthrown a duly elected President.
They have imposed a military regime which has been responsible for murder and rape and the illegal imprisonment of intellectuals such as Ken Saro 'Wiwa, who was held without trial from May 1994 until February of this year. He was subjected to torture in prison, and he was manacled and kept in the dark and without food for more than 60 days. The Government of Chief Abiola, who was the democratically elected President of that country, were totally overturned by a general, who was himself overthrown by a military coup.
Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was discussing pump priming. There should be a proviso that pump priming does not lead to the destruction of land, as is happening in Nigeria as a result of oil development. The land of the Ovoni people, whose leader is Ken Saro Wiwa, has been destroyed by what they claim are the grossly anti-environmental practices of Shell Oil in that region.
It is alleged that that is being done at the behest of the central Government, who are desperate for as much foreign revenue as they can suck in. It is also alleged that the money is not being spent in the best interests of that developing nation, but is being used for corrupt practices by an illegal regime.
Human rights should be central to the CDC's considerations when apportioning money to schemes. Such apportionment may begin with the best of intentions, but it gives little or no satisfaction to hon. Members or to the country to see desperately needed funds for developing countries being given to regimes which may occasionally provide bread and clean water and the beginnings of a health service and education, but which are mainly concerned with abusing human rights and human dignity.
I end where I began. Any consideration by the CDC of investment in schemes should not relate exclusively to economic realities and balances.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend makes an important point—that, in deciding investment priorities, the CDC should look not only at whether a sound commercial case has been made for an investment which will work and contribute to a country's development, but also at the wider social circumstances in that country.
Although there has been no investment in Nigeria for the past year, for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) spelled out, some countries with human rights records which give rise to concern have had investments in recent years. One of those is Indonesia, which has occupied, against our Government's wishes, East Timor. I accept that Nigeria is extremely important, but would my hon. Friend like to press the Minister on the wider question of human rights abuses in some of the countries in which the CDC is currently investing?

Ms Jackson: I shall certainly put that to the Minister again. I would not expect a categorical assurance at the end of the debate, but in winding up perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government are thinking of taking on board the concerns that are being expressed not only by hon. Members and by non-governmental agencies and organisations but by people all over the world.
We wish to assist in the development of third-world countries and to ensure sustainable development for the world as an entity, and the issue of human rights should be central to funding and even to selecting projects. By pump-priming major schemes, we want to develop individual abilities and enhance human dignity. We do not want simply to make a few people very rich and a very large number even more abjectly poor.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has raised an interesting aspect of the debate. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) spoke about Indonesia. Perhaps he is not aware that, according to the annual report of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the CDC has an office in Indonesia—the country that stands charged before the United Nations with abusing civil rights in many ways.
I am sure that the CDC will want to pursue that issue and perhaps write to those of us who are present for the debate. Perhaps it will explain why it feels that,


in the context of current abuses, which are the subject of repeated representations in the House, it is in order for it to invest some of its money in that country.

Mr. Bayley: I should like to make a brief intervention about Indonesia. According to the latest annual report by the CDC, in the most recent year an additional £13 million was invested in three new projects in Indonesia. A further two are due to come on stream in the next financial year. It is not just a question of continued investment in Indonesia: by comparison with many other CDC eligible countries, it is a high level of investment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The mind boggles as we getfurther into this discussion. One wonders what more would come out if we had time to consider the documents that some of us have received only in the past few moments.
The debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation (Raising of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1992 took place on 4 March in the 1st Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. Baroness Chalker, the then Minister, is now in the other place. I argued that the name of the Commonwealth Development Corporation needed to be changed.
One recommendation in the quinquennial review states:
Further consideration should be given in the context of a possible CDC Bill to the case for and against changing CDC's name".
I presume that much discussion had taken place in the Department. I argued that the name should be changed to either the British Development Corporation or to the International Development Corporation.
To some extent, my case is supported by recommendation 11 in the review, which states:
There should not in future be a target for the proportion of investments in the commonwealth".
That suggests—I am not arguing against this; there might be sensible reasons for it—that the Government and the Commonwealth Development Corporation foresee playing a lesser role in Commonwealth countries as against other countries that might have equally important calls on resources.
I and many of my hon. Friends have visited countries where the CDC has done excellent work—I think, in particular, of Malaysia. I have visited projects there on two occasions, and I have seen the formidable work that has taken place, and the major contribution that has been made to the local economy. When I visit some countries, however, I sense a slight uneasiness when I mention matters to do with the British Commonwealth, especially in the context of the debate that is taking place on the World Service about the CDC's activities, which seem to promote principles of privatisation.
I am not expressing a reservation about the need to promote arguments about privatisation in certain parts of the world—they might be sensible arguments. The question is whether those arguments should be advanced in the context of an organisation that is referred to as the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is as if we were exporting our culture through an organisation

that, historically, has bound people in a family of nations. There is almost a patronising intonation when one is promoting such principles of privatisation.
If there is to be a reduced role in the Commonwealth, why do not we change the name? Why does it not become the British or International Development Corporation? Why do we have to hang on to a name that, in some people's minds, relates beyond the Commonwealth to the colonial past? To some extent, we should perhaps withdraw from using terminology that some people might interpret as neo-colonial. I am not suggesting that the Commonwealth is a colonial organisation today, but some people in underdeveloped countries might view it as such.
I understand that some work has been done in Vietnam. Why should the organisation be known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation in Vietnam? The Vietnamese may not want to be reminded of their experience under colonialism by an organisation that was previously named the Colonial Development Corporation. This is only a fine point, and perhaps I am labouring it, but it was sufficiently important for the quinquennial review to suggest that the matter should be discussed in the context of legislation to be brought before the House of Commons.
The review states:
Over the next Quinquennium, at least 70 per cent. of board approvals each financial year should be for poor (IDA eligible) countries".
But in the debate, Baroness Chalker said:
In 1987, we further agreed with CDC that at least 60 per cent. of new investment should be made in low-income countries".—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 4 March 1992; c. 3.]
I presume that a commitment was made in the review to increase the proportion of money that is spent in International Development Association, low-income countries. Was that recommendation accepted? Reading the Library brief, one is led to believe that it was. I should like it placed on the record that that principle has been accepted by Ministers.
I understand my hon. Friends' concerns about how precious moneys could be diverted from underdeveloped countries to the former Soviet Union and to eastern and central Europe. However, the CDC has a critically important role to play in that part of world. Not many organisations have the international expertise that it has.
Some years ago, when I had responsibility for these matters on the Labour Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I had lunch with the CDC, when the issue was raised of the extent to which we should be involved in eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union.
I understand that Ministers have conceded that some developments may occur in that regard. I argue that we should substantially uplift our commitment—through organisations such as the CDC—to invest in eastern and central Europe by taking the route endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). She said that we should allow the CDC to borrow more freely from commercial markets, and to be free from constraints. The Minister may correct me, but it may be that Treasury rules are restricting the CDC from deploying its experince.

Mr. Jim Lester: I apologise to the two Front-Bench spokesmen for not being here earlier. I was with the Foreign Minister from Cambodia. One reason why the Bill is going through is that it will enable the Commonwealth Development Corporation to borrow more money so that it can do its valuable work in Cambodia as well as Vietnam. It seems apposite to welcome the Bill and to say how much one supports it and, in particular, how much one supports the CDC.
Some years ago, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs carefully considered the CDC. All of us who have travelled and seen the CDC's work in so many countries, especially the most difficult countries, where inward and private investment is hard to attract, know that its achievements are remarkable.
One wants to support everything that anyone has said that is helpful to the CDC. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will be passed as quickly as possible. With its long experience in so many countries, the CDC brings tremendous benefit back to this country in terms of what we are able to achieve, but more particularly, it benefits the countries in which it operates.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I welcome the Bill. Will the Minister give the House a definition of what the Government mean by "poor"? He said that a proportion of the funding—70 per cent. I believe—will go to "poor" countries. After the Pergau fiasco, the Government decided that aid and trade provision would no longer be given to countries with a per capita GNP of more than $700. Will the same level apply to the CDC loans in future?
Given that the Government will not in future be making contributions to the CDC's loan stock, and that moneys it lends will in future be coming from repayments from developing countries, I would be extremely uneasy if poor developing countries were paying back their loans to create a loan stock for relatively richer countries in eastern Europe.
What assurance can the Minister give the House that, if there is a policy change which allows an expansion of the CDC's operations in eastern Europe—which I broadly welcome—the loans made there will not be financed from repayments made by poorer countries?

Mr. Baldry: I shall try to respond to the various points that have been made.
Sometimes, there seemed to be an internal debate about whether people want the CDC to invest in eastern Europe. What has come out of the debate is broad agreement and support for the work that the CDC does. I am proud to trumpet its success, and I am sure that colleagues from both sides of the House will trumpet its successes around the world and in the United Kingdom.
The Government's responsibility under the CDC Acts is to set out a strategic policy framework in which the CDC operates: it is not to second-guess it. Decisions on individual investments are the responsibility of the CDC board. There may well be occasions on which we would request the CDC to delay investments in

countries where aid programme activities have been suspended on human rights grounds. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) raised some tension about the fact that one can sometimes withdraw support from a country and make things more difficult.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) mentioned Nigeria. The hon. Lady may wish to stay for the next debate and make a further contribution. We would all support the comments made today by the Commonwealth Secretary-General. He said that developments in Nigeria
underscore the point that, unless and until the military Government speedily returns the country to democratic rule, Nigeria's current ills, including instability and potential for disastrous conflict, will continue to worsen.
I am sure that we all agree with that.
Many hon. Members asked about the coverage of the CDC. It is pretty comprehensive. It is now doing significant business in India and Pakistan, and more recent additions include South Africa and Vietnam.
The CDC asks for the Government's permission if it wishes to operate in a new country. Obviously, we look to the CDC to take a view on where it is best placed to deploy its skills. It is important not to spread financial and management resources too thinly.
In fact, the CDC has not asked for permission to invest in eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. If it did so, we would have to consider that request carefully, because a number of other bodies, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, already exist with a remit to promote investment in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We would have to consider carefully whether the CDC had any comparative advantages over other organisations. As I have said, the CDC has not yet made such a request.
The CDC has not made any request about the west bank or Gaza. If it did, again we would give it careful consideration.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister say what criteria the Government would take into account if such an application were made?

Mr. Baldry: Clearly, as has been evidenced by my comments about eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, it would depend to a certain extent on what other instruments there were to support those countries, whether we thought that the CDC could make a contribution, and the arguments that the CDC put to us.
For example, the CDC has been given permission to extend its work into central America—Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala—and has done so because that complemented the work it was doing with the Commonwealth Caribbean. That made a lot of sense. However, it has not made a request to extend its work into South America or China. We would consider such requests on their merits.
Some comments were made about the possibility of any changes in clause 3 leading to an expansion in the pay and remuneration of the board of the CDC. It is fair to put on record the fact that the board is currently made up entirely of non-executives. The annual report for 1993 shows that six of those non-executives drew a remuneration of less than £5,000, and only one drew


a remuneration of up to £10,000. It is an incredibly cost-effective organisation in terms of the public service it provides.
There are a number of Scottish connections with the board. For a long time, Lord Reith—

Mr. Worthington: He is dead.

Mr. Baldry: I know that.
I was saying that Lord Reith was on the board in the 1960s and there is Sir William Ryrie now. There are some vacancies on the board. There is one woman on the board, but I will reflect on the comments made during the debate. It is important that the CDC reflects wide interests, but it is an organisation that needs to make important investment decisions. As hon. Members recognise, it needs to have the expertise necessary to make those decisions.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate meant to be critical of any of the CDC's projects, but I do not think that any project has ever drawn criticism from an overseas Government, from a non-governmental organisation or from anyone in the House. If there has ever been such criticism, I hope that hon. Members will draw attention to it subsequently. The projects that it has carried out have commanded broad support.
As to what the CDC has been called—

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady will be able to make her points in the next debate if she so wishes.

Ms Jackson: I cannot.

Mr. Baldry: Allow me to finish my point, and I will give way.
What the CDC has been called has been subject of considerable debate over the years. Clearly, an Act of Parliament started the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and it has been part of our contribution to the Commonwealth. It is now generally accepted that it is called the CDC.
If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) looks at the annual report, he will find it hard to see the Commonwealth Development Corporation spelt out in full. It is known as the CDC. Bearing in mind what some of my hon. Friends have said about promoting the CDC, I do not think that changing its name again would help. Everyone knows it as the CDC. It is recognised around the world as the CDC, and it does a good job.

Ms Jackson: I did not intend any of my contributions to be critical of the CDC, or any of its past projects or projects in which it will engage in the future. I was concerned that, in an increasingly dangerous, highly competitive and ruthless world, it should be given assistance by the Government and this House by being allowed to take on board and, if necessary, having written into its strictures and structures, that an element of consideration for abuses of human rights should be part and parcel of its thinking.

Mr. Baldry: As I said, the CDC is already very sensitive to those issues.

One or two technical points have been mentioned. Several hon. Members referred to market rate borrowing. It is a long-standing principle that public sector bodies should not generally borrow on their own credit at a higher cost than that at which the Government can borrow. The matter has been considered thoroughly a number of times, and rejected on value-for-money grounds.
One or two hon. Members asked whether we were confident that the CDC felt it had sufficient powers. It is clear from the examples cited today that the CDC is involved in a wide range of activities throughout the world. I understand that it is considering some further activities, which it is not as yet confident are within its powers. Clearly, we are working closely with the CDC to resolve any problems and avoid any unnecessary constraints on its work.

Mr. Worthington: When the Minister reads his comments in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that they mean nothing to anyone. He said, in effect, that things were being considered and that decisions would be made in the future. As we have asked about constraints on the CDC's work, it would be useful to know precisely to what issues the Minister was referring.

Mr. Baldry: There are a number of activities in which the CDC thinks it would like to invest, but it is not entirely confident that its present statutory powers cover them. That is a matter of discussion between us and the CDC.
Clearly, we do not want there to be any unnecessary constraints on its work. It is in the nature of things that, as financial markets change and as the possibilities of involvement in various operations change, the opportunities available to the CDC are increasing all the time. The original legislative framework for the CDC was set up some time ago, but we want to ensure that the CDC can do what it would like to do.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned taxation. He asked whether we would be prepared to treat the CDC differently from other trading corporations in the public sector which are taxed on the same basis as private companies, but I do not think that there are good grounds for doing so. The nature of the CDC's activities is not sufficient reason for special tax treatment, and it would be very difficult to distinguish the CDC from other bodies doing worthwhile work in the developing world.
I can tell the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that I should be happy to have a long debate about the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. It would be an interesting subject for a Wednesday morning debate if he cared to bid for one, but, in fairness to the hon. Members who wish to speak in the next debate about the Commonwealth, this is perhaps not an appropriate time to undertake such a debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have spoken to people in various parts of the world about the important issue of the CDC's name. In the event that the CDC developed a role in China, a country of 1,000 million people with immense


tradition, would the Minister think it right for the CDC to go into such a market calling itself the Commonwealth Development Corporation? That is a simple question.

Mr. Baldry: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. If he reads Hansard, he will see that I said clearly that the CDC is an organisation that is known and promotes itself as the CDC. I have no doubt that if it went into China, it would do so as the CDC.
Last year, 80 per cent. of approvals were in the poorest countries, well above the targets agreed with Ministers. I shall gladly write to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) about the interesting matter of definitions—what constitutes a "poor" country or one of the "poorest" countries. Different organisations have different definitions, and it may be useful to reach an agreement on what the terms mean. However, there is no doubt that a large proportion of CDC's investments do go and will go to the poorest countries. At the moment, the figure is about 80 per cent.

Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister for his comments. If, at some future date, the CDC starts investing in eastern and central Europe, those countries are likely to be among the remaining 20 per cent., or the "non-poor" countries. Will the Minister guarantee that the bulk of the fund—80 per cent. of CDC's investments—will remain in the poorest countries, however that is defined and whether their GNP is $700 or $1,500 per capita? The eastern European countries are richer than that.

Mr. Baldry: As I said, the CDC has not yet even applied to invest in eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. If it were to do so, one of the things that we would have to consider is the fact that other organisations are already able to invest there, so the hon. Gentleman raises an entirely hypothetical point.
There is wide support for the CDC and the Bill, and I hope that the House will grant it a Second Reading with acclaim.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Conway.]

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [14 March].

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) any increase in payments out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from provisions of the Act—

(a) increasing to £1,100 million and £1, 500 million respectively the sums of £750 million and £850 million specified in section 9A(2) of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"); and
(b) removing the limit in section 10(1) of the 1978 Act on the amounts which may be advanced to the Commonwealth Development Corporation ("the Corporation") under that section;

and any increase in payments into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund resulting from such provisions;

(2) the making of interest-free advances to the Corporation under section 10(1) of the 1978 Act; and

(3) the remission of the payment by the Corporation under section 12(1) of the 1978 Act of interest on advances under section 10(1) of that Act.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [14 March.]

Clause 1

ALTERATION OF LIMITS ON BORROWING ETC.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Joan Lestor: I seek some clarification. No one is suggesting that there should be no investment in eastern Europe. The Minister has been helpful but the research document, which I am sure that we have all been reading with great interest, clearly states:
It is not impossible that the profits from past investments in the impoverished parts of Africa could be used to finance new investments in Eastern and Central Europe.
Our concern is that the profits made in Africa would be used somewhere else and that money that might have been invested there ould be transferred elsewhere. Will the pot be large enough to prevent that from happening? Will the Minister give us some assurances on that point?

Mr. Jim Lester: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the CDC should claim additional funds only if it decided that it wanted to apply to operate in a completely different area such as eastern and central Europe? I hope that there is no suggestion that it should recycle funds from its existing portfolio so as to take on an area with such demands as central and eastern Europe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): Hon. Members may have inadvertently been misled by the research document. It seems to have led them to believe that the CDC wants to invest in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. It does not currently do so, has not asked permission to do so and, as far as I am aware, has no intention of asking to do so in the foreseeable future. As I have already said on several occasions, other bodies, such as the European bank for reconstruction and development, with a remit to promote investment in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, already exist. We would have to take all those factors carefully into consideration if we were to consider giving the CDC permission to invest in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall refresh the Minister's memory of what was said by Baroness Chalker in 1992. When he makes statements, he might try to reflect on that. She said:
there is a need for other expansion. I assure the Committee and the House that we are prepared, if necessary, to introduce primary legislation to expand the CDC's role. Subject to borrowing limits … there is nothing to stop CDC work in eastern Europe provided that there is sensible risk.
The now Baroness was thinking positively in 1992. She continued:
We hear less about the other republics, but we are doing our best to find out more so that we ensure that help within the general aid programme is sent where it is needed. More information will enable us to find out how the expertise of the CDC can open opportunities … The British private sector, backed by Government funds, has gone in to help to create a private sector and new systems in Russia and Poland and, although conditions are slightly easier there, in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, too, CDC has much of the sort of expertise that could be well deployed."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 4 March 1992; c. 11-13.]
That fairly positive statement was made almost three years ago to the day in Standing Committee. Yet, this evening, the Minister seems to be far more negative. Has there been a policy change in the Government's position? Has someone changed his mind since 1992?
I think we are all united in our view that there should be investment in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. Some of us, however, are concerned about how the investment will be funded and to what extent we can draw on capital markets in the west, borrowing and lending at commercial rates to enterprises in eastern and central Europe and in the former Soviet Union.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will take into account the commitments that were given in a one-and-a-half-hour debate in Standing Committee, about three years ago, by the present Baroness Chalker.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I understand from the Library brief that one of the proposals set out in the 1993 review was that there should be statutory change to allow the CDC to undertake consultancies not related to project investment. I am concerned that the Overseas Development Administration spends large sums on management consultants—generally United Kingdom consultancies—to advise on development strategies in the disbursement of the ODA's bilateral aid budget.
Surely it would make sense for a body with the expertise of the CDC to be able, in appropriate cases where it has relevant expertise, to offer to provide consultancy in respect of projects with which it is not concerned. In commercial—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The clause relates to borrowing limits.

Mr. Bayley: I am asking the Minister, Mr. Morris, why the consideration to which I have referred did not form part of the clause. It is—

The Chairman: Order. It is not for an hon. Member to ask why something is not in a clause. At present, we are concerned with what is in clause 1. The hon. Member may wish to raise certain issues on Third Reading or on other clauses in Committee that we have yet to debate, but for the moment we are dealing with borrowing limits.

Mr. Bayley: I am guided by you, Mr. Morris. I shall resume my place.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am left wondering whether the Bill is premature. There remain unresolved issues. At the same time, as I said earlier, some of us on the Opposition Benches feel


disappointed that the Bill has not gone far enough. The Minister has referred to issues that have not yet been resolved, and it seems that there is doubt about whether they are within the competence of the CDC. That seems odd when we are considering a recently introduced Bill. I am convinced that the issues of competence relate to the CDC's competence to borrow from the commercial sector, for example.
I ask the Minister to try to explain the real issues that are now before the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in determining the role of the CDC where there is doubt about its competence. Such an explanation would be valuable. It seems—

The Chairman: Order. Such an explanation might be valuable but our rules are clear: we must deal strictly with clause 1, which relates to borrowing limits. As I have said, the Bill can be debated on Third Reading. Some of the issues that are now being raised could most appropriately be introduced at that stage. For the moment, the Minister, along with Back-Bench Members, must restrict himself to borrowing limits.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

REMUNERATION ETC. OF MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The research paper provided by the Library states:
This Clause enables the Secretary of State to determine the remuneration, allowances and pensions of members of the Corporation".
Why was it necessary to propose the change that the clause would introduce, or is it a change? What was the motive in seeking to bring about the change and then removing the requirement for Treasury consent
in relation to such matters"?
Perhaps I can understand the proposal to some extent because my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I were previously advancing related arguments on a more general basis. Why should determination of the remuneration, allowances and pensions of members of the corporation be changed in the way that is proposed?

Mr. Baldry: The members of the board of the CDC at present are all non-executive directors. Unlike all other bodies, the chief executive is not a member of the board. Therefore, there is no control over the level of remuneration of the chief executive. Under the proposals set out in the Bill, the chief executive will become a member of the board. As a result, and consistent with other public bodies, there will be some control over the remuneration of the chief executive.
We do not envisage any increase in overall spending on the CDC as a consequence of those measures. We get extremely good value from the CDC in terms of the contributions that non-executive members make to

the board. The clause is designed to ensure that arrangements are brought into line and are consistent with those that prevail in all other public bodies.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do I understand that the exercise of control in national health service trusts, for example, is no different from that in the CDC when it comes to the chairman's remuneration? In an odd way, an NHS trust is carrying out a similar function.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Are we on clause 3, Mr. Morris?

The Chairman: Yes, we are.

Mr. Forman: I am interested in subsection (5). I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to explain why it might be necessary to insert the "following paragraph", which is 5A. What special circumstances does he envisage in which it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to approve compensation for someone who is ceasing to be a member of the corporation? Surely it is honour enough to be a member of the corporation. I am a great respecter of the CDC. Why should someone require or deserve compensation when ceasing to be a member of it?

Mr. Bayley: I have been searching through the latest copy of the CDC's report and accounts to discover information about the remuneration of directors—

Mr. Baldry: It is on page 72.

Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister.

Mr. Baldry: I believe that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
With regard to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), clause 3 ensures that the CDC is entirely consistent with regard to board structures, board remuneration and Treasury controls in respect of every other similar public body. There may well be circumstances when a person ceases to be a member of the board, and if the Secretary of State deems that there are special circumstances, in which it would be right that that person should receive compensation, that is a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State. We do not envisage any immediate or likely circumstance when that will arise, but that brings the position into line with provisions in similar Bills.

6 pm

Mr. Forman: I hope that there is no question of having rolling two or three-year contracts for those people. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that in the private sector generally, under the influence of the Cadbury committee and so on, there is a strong move away from that kind of thing.

Mr. Baldry: It is pity that my hon. Friend is a late arrival to this debate. The tragedy is that we are in danger of not paying full tribute to the members of the CDC board who give very valuable service for very little remuneration. If my hon. Friend considers the


annual report, he will see that all the existing directors of the CDC are non-executive directors. They make a considerable contribution and considerable public effort for a token remuneration. We are simply ensuring that the CDC is on a par with any other similar organisation within the public sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — The Commonwealth

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): This is a welcome and timely debate. This week, the whole Commonwealth observed Commonwealth day. Here, at Westminster Abbey, Her Majesty the Queen, the head of the Commonwealth, attended a multi-faith service at which, for the first time since 1961, the South African flag was paraded with those of the 50 other Commonwealth members, and the flags of the Commonwealth fly today in Parliament square.
This weekend, the Queen returns to South Africa for a state visit. It will be her first visit since 1947, when she dedicated herself to the Commonwealth. South Africa's return to the Commonwealth family of nations marks a turning point, which I am glad the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has noted and remarked by undertaking its own inquiry into "The future role of the Commonwealth". Such work will help to focus our minds on what the Commonwealth can and cannot do.
In New Zealand in November, Heads of Government from the Commonwealth will meet once again for their two-yearly conference, the first at which South Africa will have been present for over 30 years: 30 difficult years for the Commonwealth, now happily behind us.
The Commonwealth's origins lie in the supple relations that evolved between London and the dominions up to 1947. It is now a very different body that encompasses nations that are linked to the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, but which have rightly chosen to make their own way in the world. The Commonwealth has helped them to do so. The Commonwealth was set up not to withstand change, but to reflect and to respond to it. The Commonwealth has no formal constitutional structure: it relies on conventions and procedures that evolved by consent.
The Commonwealth has no voting rights or international legal authority, but that very looseness is a great advantage compared to other international institutions, which were often set up with a single purpose in mind and which are now having to adapt to a vastly different post-cold war world. The inherent flexibility of the Commonwealth gives it a freedom to respond to the times, and to help take forward the best interests of a quarter of the world's people.
The Commonwealth is as much an association of peoples as it is of Governments. The Commonwealth's organisations and peoples benefit from shared practices and beliefs, and not infrequently from the widespread use of English. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, well described the Commonwealth's central attribute as its ability
to bridge racial, ideological and economic divides and inequalities, assisted by its common language and common heritage".
We agree that the Commonwealth acts as a bridge in those ways.
Commonwealth countries comprise over a quarter of the world's peoples, from the tundra of Hudson bay to the lush rain forests of Guyana; from the deserts of


Australia and northern Nigeria to the olive groves of Cyprus. Every religion is represented, reflected in the Muslim, Jain, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian divines who spoke at Westminster Abbey on Monday, all subscribing to five Commonwealth affirmations, ending with a prayer for peace led by Mr. Gordon Wilson of Enniskillen, and a final affirmation:
We affirm our common faith in the need to establish justice for every individual, and through common effort to secure peace and reconciliation between nations".
Our challenge is to translate those values into specific and beneficial actions.
Let me cite three down-to-earth Commonwealth organisations that daily put those values into practice in a concrete way. The first is the Commonwealth Foundation, which, on a budget of only £2 million, helps to keep alive and thriving a host of Commonwealth professional and other non-governmental organisations. It will hold its second NGO conference in New Zealand in June. We have helped to finance that meeting and believe it can do good work.
Well-known groups like the Commonwealth Games Federation and the Commonwealth Medical Association—[Interruption.] I knew that the Commonwealth Games Federation would bring a cheer from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Those two bodies and others bring together peoples from across the Commonwealth, such as Commonwealth architects and Common wealth dentists, to share professional expertise, idea; and experience.
The second organisation is the Common wealth Parliamentary Association. We all know well the contribution that the CPA and parliamentarians make in promoting the cause of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The CPA reaches beyond the Commonwealth to countries looking to join or rejoin.
The CPA provides invaluable assistance, guidance and training. Its involvement begins long before elections are ever planned; it continues through the pre-election and election processes, and it stays on to ensure that advice is available on the spot after elections. The UK branch alone provides vital training and support in parliamentary practice and procedure to some 50 Commonwealth parliamentarians each year through seminars in the UK. There is an unrivalled wealth of experience among its members from all the Commonwealth, which provides a vital link with overseas parliamentary systems through the overseas visits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—the chairman of the CPA executive committee—reminded the House of the value of parliamentary workshops during the debate on the South Africa Bill last week. I share my hon. Friend's views on the usefulness and importance of such experience sharing, and my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker and I will give his proposal for further support for CPA initiatives constructive consideration. If my hon. Friend and the CPA would like to talk to us about that, we would be interested to consider the CPA's ideas.
Thirdly, there is the Commonwealth Institute here in London. I am aware of the support that it enjoys in the House, but unfortunately its exhibitions have stayed still and visitor numbers have fallen off. Indeed, it looked

at one time as if the Commonwealth Institute might have to close. That would have been a great sadness, but the building itself, which is remarkable in its way, needed major repairs, especially to its huge canopy copper roof.
I am delighted to say that the institute's supporters have devised a new exhibition concept, "Wonders of the World", which highlights some of the great natural wonders in Commonwealth countries. The Government have offered to make £2.4 million available provided the institute can raise £5 million in sponsorship commitments by July this year.
The institute has provided generations of schoolchildren and visitors to London with a window on the world of the Commonwealth. We hope that that can continue, and if the sponsorship target is met that will be a clear indication of the support that the Commonwealth enjoys in this country.

Mr. Clive Soley: Many of us were very worried when the Commonwealth Institute was threatened with closure. I welcome what the Minister says, and I know from my contacts that there is now hope that it will continue. Many schools now try to arrange exchanges with Commonwealth countries. I know a school near Stroud that is arranging for a group of children to go to India. Far more such activities could be arranged, and they would fit in with the work of the Commonwealth Institute, but the Government must put in more money. Will the Minister consider helping schools to arrange exchanges with other Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Baldry: One of the advantages of the Commonwealth is that much can be done on a voluntary basis. Many exchanges take place around the Commonwealth, but one would have to have regard to where the money was coming from and how the exchanges were organised and attributed. Such schemes look attractive at first sight, but they could have substantial financial implications. Again, that is one of the topics that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee could consider when it studies the future of the Commonwealth. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member who has ideas about how we could take forward Commonwealth initiatives should not put them to the Select Committee.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am glad to hear the Minister say such warm and appreciative words about the Commonwealth Institute. I too have visited it and have been impressed by the determination of Mr. Cox and his staff to take things forward, albeit on the basis of diminishing public financial support, which I believe will be phased out completely by 1999.
In developing his policy on the Commonwealth, will my hon. Friend take full account of the larger role that the Commonwealth Institute could play in acquainting people, especially young people, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, with the great potential of the Commonwealth? Britain, as the mother country of the Commonwealth, should have a more


attractive window on the Commonwealth for all young people. Will my hon. Friend bear that aim in mind when deciding what support to give the institute?

Mr. Baldry: I entirely endorse everything that my hon. Friend says. That is why we have made it clear that we are prepared to support the Commonwealth Institute, but for the institute to move forward it must be viable and capable of demonstrating that it is viable. Sadly, in the recent past visitor numbers have fallen and exhibitions have remained fairly static. All that is now changing, and the institute has suggested advanced and bold initiatives for making itself more attractive. We hope that they will succeed, so as to enable future generations of children from here and elsewhere in the Commonwealth to benefit from the institute's work and from the educational opportunities that it can offer.
Few would dispute the value of the various forms of professional and non-governmental co-operation between the peoples of different Commonwealth countries, but when we ask what the co-operation between Commonwealth Governments means in practice the answer is more complicated. Charges of double standards, of vague and generalised communiqués and of exclusive concentration on particular issues at the expense of other matters equally important have in the past had a certain ring of truth. But even if we were to admit those falls from grace, two strands in the shared political activity between Commonwealth countries have proved their worth and will continue to do so.
First, the Commonwealth provides a conduit for a host of links for practical co-operation between Governments—links that otherwise would almost certainly not exist. Secondly and importantly, the Commonwealth as an association has a role in promoting good government and human rights.
On practical co-operation, let me cite just two instances, not of Britain supporting the Commonwealth but of other Commonwealth countries supporting each other. First, there is the interest that the Canadians take in the professional and economic well-being of Caribbean Commonwealth countries. That is not necessarily a logical connection, but the shared values in law, in education and in sport combine to ensure that those Caribbean states, which are small and sometimes vulnerable, can turn to a genuine friend for support.
Another example is provided by the programme that the Indian Government provide for African and other Commonwealth military personnel to receive training of the highest quality at the Indian staff colleges. Again, that is not an obvious connection, but the Commonwealth link has made it possible and fostered it. We should not forget, either, the immense network of educational co-operation throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth teachers exchange programme enables more than 400 teachers and their families to swap schools for an academic year.
The Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship programme enables more than 500 students from Commonwealth countries to further their studies in other Commonwealth countries. The Association of Commonwealth Universities, a superb organisation that is little known outside its field, enables Commonwealth

universities to exchange teachers, administrators and ideals. For example, it allows vice-chancellors from the Pacific to share problems with vice-chancellors from the West Indies or Asia. To attend one of the association's conferences is to see the Commonwealth as most imagine it should be.

Mr. Jim Lester: Does my hon. Friend accept that the newest Commonwealth organisation, the Commonwealth Local Government Forum, which has existed for only one year, represents a new step forward in the way in which we can foster good governance not only at central Government level hut at the level of government that matters most to people—local government? Just today the Barbadian delegate to the Commonwealth Assembly asked for assistance in establishing local government in Barbados, which the Government are now seeking to bring about.

Mr. Baldry: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, it was he who took through the House a private Member's Bill enabling local authorities in this country to give technical support to local government overseas. Only the other day, the deputy Minister responsible for local government in South Africa was in London attending a conference with a significant number of local councillors and others from this country. He talked about the local government elections that will take place in South Africa in October, and the support that can be given by this country in many different ways—for example, in terms of technical expertise and monitoring. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to another way in which the Commonwealth can be of assistance. When I visit Barbados later this year, I shall certainly pursue the issue of local government support for Barbados.
A second strand of Commonwealth intergovernmental co-operation, and perhaps the most important, is the contribution that the Commonwealth can and does make to good government and human rights. Of course, there have in the past been some very bleak spots. Idi Amin's Uganda was perhaps the most notorious, but the Commonwealth was able to help put Uganda back on its feet when Amin was overthrown.
Sadly, there are still some bleak spots today. In the Gambia, where the democratic government of Sir Dawda Jawara was shamelessly overthrown in July last year in a military putsch, the timetable for democratic elections, even if implemented, means that they will be delayed by at least two years.
Sadly, in Nigeria, which, rightly, was mentioned in the debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, the military Government's commitment to return to civilian democratic rule carries as yet little conviction. The pattern of ministerial dismissals, arbitrary arrests and bans on political activity undermines confidence in what the military Government profess to want to do.
In Sierra Leone, the Government of Captain Strasser have a programme for elections, but are hard pressed by rebel activity to put it into practice. Those problems actively concern Commonwealth Governments, and we welcome the lead that the Commonwealth


Secretary-General has taken in addressing them. The Secretary-General—himself a distinguished Nigerian—has observed:
Nigeria cannot seriously aspire to wield any appreciable influence abroad or play a leading role in realising Africans' hopes unless it can put its own house in order".
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland will wish to establish how they can help to reverse those setbacks.
We should recognise that relations between Commonwealth countries, too, have not always been harmonious. The tension between India and Pakistan causes concern to us, and to all other members of the Commonwealth—friends of both countries. Nevertheless, while the problems between India and Pakistan can best be resolved bilaterally, it is reasonable to think that they might have become more difficult if the Commonwealth link had not existed.
It would be idle to imagine that such problems will disappear; the question is, how is the Commonwealth equipped to respond? The picture is encouraging. After the long period during which South Africa preoccupied Heads of Government conferences, a fresh start was made in Harare in 1991 with the adoption of the Harare declaration, a detailed and clear commitment by all Commonwealth Governments to high standards in accountable, just government and the protection of human rights. The Commonwealth now has an objective benchmark against which to assess its own members' records.
In 1991, the Commonwealth Secretary-General launched a major programme to help Commonwealth states to organise multi-party elections in Zambia, the Seychelles, Guyana, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, South Africa and Malawi. Commonwealth election observer groups have been preceded by technical missions to help in the organisation of elections, and by Commonwealth teams that have subsequently arrived—supplemented by teams from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and elsewhere—to assist in putting parliamentary democracy on a firm footing.
However hesitant and faltering those efforts may seem, they represent a collective act of will by 51 diverse Governments, with the moral authority that that commands. In a post-imperial world, that role for the Commonwealth should not be underestimated: we attach the highest importance to it. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attends the Heads of Government conference in Auckland in November, the Commonwealth's role in sustaining democracy will be at the forefront of his priorities.
Nor should it be forgotten that Commonwealth countries play a full part in United Nations peacekeeping. Five of the top 10 contributors to UN peacekeeping are Commonwealth countries: ourselves, Pakistan, Canada, Bangladesh and Ghana. Commonwealth troops are currently in Kuwait, the former republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Rwanda, Western Sahara, Tajikistan, Liberia, Haiti, Angola, the Golan Heights and El Salvador. Commonwealth troops are making a major contribution to UN peacekeeping around the world.
An aspect that has tended to be overlooked in recent years is the importance of Commonwealth counties as trade and investment partners. The Commonwealth includes five of the world's 10 fastest-growing

economies since 1985: Singapore, Mauritius, Botswana, Belize and Hong Kong. Commonwealth countries generally are now pursuing policies of political and economic liberalisation; exports to the Commonwealth, far from declining since our entry into the European Community, have grown by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since 1983.
The dynamic emerging economies of Asia—Malaysia and Singapore, for instance—have contributed to our economic growth in recent years. In the past five years, our exports to Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia have increased by 100 per cent. India, too, shows signs of becoming an increasingly important trading partner as the benefits of economic reform take effect. The Indo-British partnership initiative has been a great success, and South Africa and Pakistan clearly also have export potential. More than 60 per cent. of our exports to the Commonwealth are now to the "new" Commonwealth.
But it is not all one way. In 1993, Britain was a major importer from 35 of the 39 Commonwealth countries for which we have up-to-date statistics. Our balance of trade with the Commonwealth is healthier than our balance of trade with the European Community or the rest of the world. Commonwealth countries are an important recipient of British investment: some £36.8 billion, nearly a quarter of our investment stock, is held in those countries, over 40 per cent. of it in the new Commonwealth.
Britain's entry into the EC has been seen by many Commonwealth countries as a benefit, not only for their exports to the UK but because it opens up new European markets. The absolute level of trade with Commonwealth countries has held up well since Britain joined the EC. We argued for the creation of the European Union banana regime in the face of virulent opposition from some of our European partners which have no special links with traditional banana-producing countries.
We hope that the regime has given the Commonwealth countries a breathing space during which they will restructure their industries and make their economies more competitive—a process with which we are willing to assist them. There will be further threats to the regime, both from within Europe and from further afield, but we remain committed to defending the fundamentals of the regime to protect the interests of our Commonwealth friends.
Rum is one of the industrial successes of the Caribbean Commonwealth. We have argued strongly for the ending of the anomalous arrangements under the Lomé convention, which restrict rum exports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to the European market. EC quotas on "light rum"—90 per cent. of ACP production—have now been abolished; as a result of determined UK pressure, the quota for "traditional rum" has been set at three times the level originally proposed by the Commission. With further increases of 3,000 hectolitres each year before total abolition in the year 2000, we believe that that offers the Caribbean rum industry the opportunity and incentive that it needs to continue its successful development.
Those are two instances of the way in which our membership of both the Commonwealth and the European Union has enabled us to play a constructive


part. A third and more recent contribution was made in the recent fisheries dispute. I think that I can best summarise that contribution by reading a communiqué given to diplomatic editors today by the Canadian high commissioner in London. It states:
The Canadian High Commissioner, the Hon. Royce Frith today (Thursday, March 16) phoned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to thank the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his very helpful role in bringing the parties to the negotiating table, as the British and Canadian governments had sought to achieve from the beginning.
That is another instance of the way in which our membership of both the Commonwealth and the European Union enables us to play a constructive part.
Commonwealth countries are close trading partners. Many are countries whose further development we seek to encourage through our aid budget. It is our policy to maintain a large and effective bilateral aid programme; because of our historical links, it is right that the largest share of British aid should go to Commonwealth countries. Of the top 10 recipients of bilateral aid in 1993-94, six—India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Uganda—are Commonwealth members. Bilaterally, we also have large "good government" programmes in a number of Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth as an institution has also provided us with a useful opportunity to emphasise the need for good government, and the importance of economic and political reform.
In 1993-94, £625 million, well over half our gross bilateral public spending on aid, went to Commonwealth countries. In the context of multilateral aid, our objective is to ensure that Commonwealth aid programmes meet real needs in developing countries by providing assistance—such as aid to small island states—that lies within their areas of comparative advantage over other aid agencies.
In that context, it may be helpful if I reiterate our position on the European development fund and Lomé. We have announced our intention to contribute a substantial sum to EDF VIII. It will be a significant reduction in cash terms on our contribution to EDF VII. We are not taking a position on the overall size of EDF VIII; nor are we making a judgment on the quality of the EDF. The reduction has been made because we are trying to achieve a better balance between multilateral and bilateral aid.
We expect multilateral aid to reach around 60 per cent. of total British aid in several years' time; EC aid alone will be more than 40 per cent. of the total UK aid programme. We also need to contribute to a substantial replenishment of the International Development Association both this year and in three years' time. Multilateral commitments are growing all the time.
Against that background, our objective is to maintain a substantial bilateral programme. We intend to continue to be a major contributor bilaterally to the development process in ACP countries, particularly in Africa. Our commitment to Africa remains strong. We are giving £850 million of bilateral aid to the special programme of assistance for Africa, which is a multi-donor effort

co-ordinated by the World bank. A strong bilateral programme ensures that we have the ability to make the decisions to support countries in the Commonwealth.

Dr. Robert Spink: My hon. Friend shows great mastery of his brief. Does he agree that Commonwealth countries might take great comfort from our taking between £8 million and £11 million from our Overseas Development Administration bilateral aid budget and using it to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation so that we could further promote education, science and culture?

Mr. Baldry: We will need to consider whether to join UNESCO on its merits. As my hon. Friend knows, we left it because we did not think that it was serving its purpose well. In due course, we will have to consider whether to rejoin UNESCO. We have to take each organisation on its merits and consider whether it serves well the interests of those whom it has been set up to serve.
Our bilateral aid is very much valued and appreciated throughout the Commonwealth. It might be of interest to the House if I read what the Ugandan Minister of Finance wrote only a matter of days ago to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
I would like to express to you and to Her Majesty's Government the most sincere gratitude of my own and that of the Government and people of Uganda for the vital concern which Great Britain has shown consistently about the crushing burden of debt which Uganda and other Sub-Saharan African countries are shouldering.
As you know, the first fruits of your most commendable efforts came with the write-off of the greater portion of our Paris Club debts this month. For my part, I can only promise you and Her Majesty's Government that the generosity of the Paris Club members to Uganda will not be frittered away. We shall stay the course of economic reform and liberalization upon which the growth of our economy so critically depends.
We trust that with an expanding economy, Uganda will progressively fend for herself and eventually meet her international obligations.
Once again, thank you so much.
Uganda and many Commonwealth countries which we support with development aid recognise that Britain has taken a leading role in tackling the problems of debt. They recognise that our bilateral programme of aid is of great benefit to them.
We also support the Commonwealth secretariat. We contribute up to 30 per cent.—just less than £3 million—of the secretariat's programme and running costs, which in 1994-95 will amount to £9 million.
Those links are reinforced by regular ministerial contact between members and fellow countries in the Commonwealth. During the past three years, there have been ministerial visits to 41 Commonwealth countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been to Canada, Cyprus, India, Malaysia and South Africa, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Ministers across Government remain in close contact with Commonwealth colleagues on matters of common concern. We have frequent visits from Commonwealth Heads of Government to the United Kingdom.


All Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Zealand will have an interest in the implementation of the Harare declaration. It would be neither credible nor worthy to ignore those countries whose Governments fail to match principle and practice. The Commonwealth would be false to its vocation if it failed to respond meaningfully, convincingly and effectively to the challenges posed by military Governments. Other members will have their own priorities for the meeting in Auckland. Some will have an interest in helping Fiji to return to the Commonwealth. Fiji has begun the process of reviewing its constitution.
The summit will also have to deal with Cameroon's application to join the Commonwealth. Two years ago at Limassol, Heads of Government said that they would be ready to welcome Cameroon at Auckland, provided that by then its efforts to establish a democratic system, consistent with the Harare declaration, had been completed. We think that Cameroon may still have some way to go to meet that requirement, but it is of interest that there are countries that wish to join the Commonwealth.
We cannot anticipate the agenda at Auckland, but at the meeting in Limassol two years ago, for example, the Prime Minister, with Mr. Keating, the Australian Prime Minister, was able to persuade the conference to adopt a short declaration on the GATT Uruguay round, to launch a Commonwealth mission to press for its conclusion and to allow that Commonwealth mission to speak on behalf of Commonwealth countries as a group. That was a useful initiative, which demonstrated the ability of the Commonwealth to respond to concerns of the day.
Provided the Commonwealth adheres to realities and achievable goals, and eschews the temptation of grandiose or hollow declarations, it can and will remain a force for good. It is in that spirit that we approach the next Heads of Government conference in New Zealand in November. The conference will be the first to be attended by South Africa since 1961. That will give the Auckland meeting a special character. Given the attention that the Commonwealth has paid in the past 30 years to South Africa, it would be entirely proper for the Commonwealth and its members to continue its special efforts to meet South Africa's post-election needs, as it has done for other countries after independence.
If South Africa remains stable and prosperous, the whole of southern Africa—Commonwealth countries in large part—will benefit. If South Africa fails to realise its potential, the prospects for Africa as a whole, much of it Commonwealth Africa, will be diminished. The Commonwealth as an association remains engaged in South Africa at a moment when practical support may make a decisive difference.
Between now and November, new issues may well arise on which the Auckland conference can usefully comment. We certainly see scope for the Commonwealth working together, doing more to combat drugs, drug trafficking, money laundering and organised international crime as a whole. At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Canada last year, that issue attracted the support of parliamentarians right across the Commonwealth. We will be talking to our

Commonwealth partners about our ideas on how we can work together better to handle drugs and international crime between now and next November.
The Commonwealth has no big battalions on its own account. It cannot enforce, it cannot direct and it operates by consensus. In a world of strains and conflicts, the Commonwealth helps to promote a sense of shared values, shared responsibilities, shared histories and shared experience. There is much that the Commonwealth can do together and should do together to promote shared values.

Mr. George Foulkes: I join the Minister in welcoming the debate and in thanking the Leader of the House for the allocation of time for it. It is the first debate that we have had on the important topic of the Commonwealth since 1987, and a great deal has happened since then.
There will be a great deal of bipartisanship in the debate. The Minister, knowing me, would be disappointed—

Mr. Baldry: Devastated.

Mr. Foulkes: —devastated, indeed, if the debate was completely bipartisan. He will certainly not be disappointed. The temptation in a debate on the Commonwealth is to make a tour d'horizon—if my French is acceptable—of the 51 states and give some commentary on each one. Hon. Members will be glad to know that I intend to resist that temptation.
As I was not able to attend the debate on the South Africa Bill last week, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome South Africa back into the Commonwealth fold after an unfortunate isolation of more than 30 years. The elections in South Africa last year and the resulting end of a universally despised apartheid regime were welcomed by all, particularly by those in the Commonwealth and by those in this House who made it their especial task year after year, Question Time after Question Time, debate after debate, to highlight the divisions and the racial injustices in a society which offended human and democratic values. It has been a long and painful journey for the people of South Africa, and it is by no means yet complete. We have a great deal more to do to help the people of South Africa.
I am glad that South Africa's re-entry into the Commonwealth family has been precipitated at a very early opportunity. It will enable the Commonwealth to further its common values in a country which was devoid of such principles during its long isolation. A stable South Africa will benefit other nations of the Commonwealth especially, as the Minister rightly said, in Africa, which is dominated by Commonwealth countries.
The evolution of the Commonwealth is progressing at a pace which is quicker than ever. The changing nature of an institution born of British imperialist tendencies is marked and the opportunities for Britain and for our Commonwealth partners, economically, politically and culturally, are there to be grasped. The Commonwealth is no more a crude remnant of colonialisation or, as Disraeli once described it,


a millstone around our necks".

Mr. Nigel Forman: That was before the Commonwealth.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course—I just could not bring myself to say the word "empire", as I am sure he will appreciate.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman need not worry; I shall be saying it later.

Mr. Foulkes: In 40 years the Commonwealth has grown from a few dominions to 51 wholly independent members with populations ranging from a few thousand people to several hundred million. With a total population of around 1.5 billion people, the Commonwealth is the largest multilateral organisation in the world, other than the United Nations, and covers a quarter of the world's land area. I agreed with the point made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) about the need for us to rejoin UNESCO, and I was disappointed that the Minister did not give a more positive reply; it is good that some of his Back Benchers keep reminding him.
The Commonwealth spans a quarter of the world's land area and its peoples derive from all five continents and from every major regional bloc and economic zone. It makes up 25 per cent. of the United Nations General Assembly, uniting large and small, developed and developing nations. There are still remnants of the empire, of course, in the shape of the dependent territories. I do not intend to deal with all of them, but from what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said just now, it seems that he intends to spend some time talking about them if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Sadly, as we all know, one dependent territory—Hong Kong—is to leave the Commonwealth in 1997. I hope that the Minister recognises the concerns of hon. Members of all parties for the maintenance of democracy and human rights in Hong Kong after 1 July 1997. China has agreed to one country and two systems. The system in Hong Kong is a matter not just of capitalism as opposed to communism but of democracy, which is an essential part of that system and must not be tampered with. I hope that the British Government will make that clear to the Government of China.
I shall not dwell on the Falklands, a group of islands on which I have had enormous pleasure on occasions, but I shall briefly mention the Caribbean dependent territories. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should spend more time looking at the future of those territories. Labour Members accept that those territories should not be pushed unwillingly to independence, but there should be maximum internal autonomy. I have been concerned over the past few years by the actions of governors in relation to the elected Governments of those dependent territories. It is a delicate relationship, and middle-rank Foreign Office diplomats do not always possess the necessary sensitivity to deal with it.
Some people describe the Commonwealth as lacking a modern role and as needing revitalisation and energy. I understand their concerns, but a role is being fulfilled. There have been whispers of the demise of the

Commonwealth based on the old view of it. There is a feeling—I hope that it is not shared by anyone in this House—that since South Africa has sorted out its immediate problems, our work is complete. Neither of those assumptions is true. Indeed, as the Minister rightly said, more countries are seeking to join the Commonwealth. He mentioned Cameroon, but Mozambique, Eritrea and Angola also want to join. Namibia, of course, has already joined.
The Commonwealth has committed members around the globe, particularly in Africa, who are also involved in their own regional organisations. The Minister rightly mentioned the role that the United Kingdom can play as a bridge between the Commonwealth and the European Union. I welcome what was said by the Canadian high commissioner. I certainly do not criticise our Government over what was done.
Equally, all other Commonwealth countries have their own regional networks to plug into. There is the North American free trade agreement, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, the Pacific rim, the preferential trade area for eastern and southern Africa, and many more. The Commonwealth transcends those groupings and provides opportunities—multilaterally and bilaterally—in areas of economic aid, of trade and of global security.
Many advantages of membership are evident. The Commonwealth's very diversity can often be its strength. The Minister mentioned the multi-faith service. The development of understanding between, for example, Islamic Pakistan, the Christian Caribbean, Buddhist Sri Lanka, and the commitment to opposing racial prejudice has been significant in the Commonwealth's approach.
The ideals of the Commonwealth are also those of democracy and the democratic process, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government, fundamental human rights, equality for women, universal access to education, sustainable development, the alleviation of poverty in member countries, protection of the environment, and the promotion of international consensus on major issues. It sounds a bit like our new clause IV—>[Interruption.]

Mr. Donald Dewar: It is very tempting.

Mr. Foulkes: It is indeed.
All those ideals, however, are not prevalent throughout all the Commonwealth countries. Indeed, they are not all prevalent in the United Kingdom. I could spend some time addressing that topic, but I shall not do so. Instead, I will refer to events such as the military coup in the Gambia and the human rights abuses in Nigeria. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) raised the latter point in the previous debate.
I was also pleased at the way in which the Minister spoke about Nigeria as there is great concern about the situation there. Lord Avebury, as chairman of the parliamentary human rights group, has written to the Nigerian high commissioner expressing concern about the arrest of General Obasanjo and the health of Chief Abiola. I hope that the Minister will follow up his very welcome expressions of concern by making direct representations to the Government of Nigeria through its high commissioner.


The Commonwealth ideal is not yet universal even within the Commonwealth countries, although much has been achieved over the past few years and many groups have worked hard to further the core Commonwealth ideal of democracy. As the Minister said, in the Seychelles and Ghana, we have seen a return to multi-party democracy after one-party rule. In Lesotho, military rule gave way to a democratically elected Government. In Guyana, where I was present during the elections as an observer, and in Pakistan, many election observers witnessed peaceful changes of Government by democratic means: all progress in the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth secretariat, which was set up during the first Wilson Government in 1965, has advanced the democratisation of countries and, as the Minister said, it plays a substantial role in combating drug trafficking and abuse, in attempting to help the wave of refugees, in problems of third-world debt, in technical and medical co-operation, in environmental strategies and much more. Many hon. Members, especially those who have turned up for this debate, will have witnessed the work that the Commonwealth secretariat and other Commonwealth organisations are doing at first hand and will wish to refer to that aspect.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is an organisation of which I have a special knowledge and for which I have special affection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows, I am the joint honorary treasurer; the other is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the House will appreciate that I do all the work.
I see the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in his place; he is chairman of the United Kingdom branch and I know that he welcomes the fact that a Scotsman is joint honorary treasurer. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is willing to talk about supporting delegations, seminars and further activities because, throughout the Commonwealth, those help to strengthen political, cultural and economic links among all countries and help us to encourage the development of democratic ideals.
The CPA provides a permanent parliamentary focus for the most diverse group of nations within the United Nations and is the sole means of regular consultation among members of Commonwealth Parliaments. The membership continues to thrive here in Westminster, highlighting the extent to which hon. Members and peers value its work. We have more than 565 members in the Commons alone and I hope that hon. Members who are not yet members will soon join.

Mr. Dewar: How much does it cost?

Mr. Foulkes: It is not very expensive, and it can be seen as an investment. The commitment of Commonwealth Members of Parliament is also well known.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) rightly mentioned that the democratic process has to move further down to the grass roots within the Commonwealth. The need for local and regional government has long been recognised in this country. Sometimes we have wandered—the previous Prime Minister started to abolish some of our local government, but it has been generally recognised as an area in which the Commonwealth can further its ideals.
Although in its infancy in some developing countries, the democratic process can be given the wealth of experience that is present in other Commonwealth states. Local democracy is a key element of the democratic process. As a former councillor, I know that. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, recognised that fact when, in addressing the 40th CPA conference in Banff, Canada, he referred to the "effective devolution of power" and said:
a rigorous and strong system of local government should contribute to, and strengthen parliamentary democracy".
The establishment of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum in 1994 as a new Commonwealth body to promote local democracy and community development is greatly to be welcomed and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. We now have 77 organisations with Commonwealth in their title and the number is growing at the rate of three per year. As the Minister said, they are responsible for the Commonwealth games, the Commonwealth human rights initiative and others. The Commonwealth Local Government Forum will significantly strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to encourage the development of local government, and Opposition Members welcome it.
The forum works closely with local government in the United Kingdom and will allow effective utilisation of the provisions of the hon. Member for Broxtowe's Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993, under which local authorities can become actively involved in overseas activities. We shall have to be careful which authorities they are. To take a random example, Lady Porter's would not be an obvious choice, and I am sure that Conservative Members have other suggestions. To date, the CLGF has undertaken initiatives in countries such as Malawi, Tanzania and South Africa, where the focus is on induction programmes for newly elected councillors.
I have concentrated on democracy at national and local level, but, however important, it cannot alone answer all the problems of our developing partners in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth recognises the essential link between democracy and socio-econornic development. The Commonwealth and the heads of each of its Governments should accept that there are developing countries which have maintained impeccable democratic credentials, but which are still struggling with crippling developmental problems.
Our calls for increasing and improved democracy must be accompanied by effective co-operation in tackling those major socio-economic problems. Poverty and hardship can breed social unrest, disillusionment with the democratic process and rejection of the principles that we value so highly. The culmination can often be extremism of the left or the right, or military takeovers—the rise to power of the sort of Governments that the Commonwealth has sought to eradicate. That is a very real problem as people are overwhelmed by the weight of poverty that ensues.
Whatever the Minister said—with all his fine words—the only answer is one that has seemed to elude Conservative Governments in the past 16 years. Since 1945, the Conservative party has been perceived as resisting the tide of decolonisation and staying true to the ideals of imperialist Britain and the 19th century Conservative objective of
upholding the Empire of England.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Not at all.

Mr. Foulkes: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of Baroness Thatcher's struggle to avert pressure on white South Africa, which epitomised that trend. If she had had her way, we would not have put pressure on white South Africa to end apartheid. Her understanding of the Commonwealth principles of democracy was shown in her message to the Commonwealth conference in 1987, when she said:
Anyone who thinks that the ANC is going to run the Government in South Africa is living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land".
The right hon. Baroness is the one who is living in cloud cuckoo land. Some Conservative Members, including most of those here today, have had a more enlightened attitude, but she was the Prime Minister and the Head of Government.
The manner in which the Heath Government entered the European Community caused some resentment among our Commonwealth friends, but equally—I know the background of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), the parliamentary private secretary, and his family history—the view taken by some Conservative Members that we can return to a position in which the Commonwealth is seen as a substitute for Europe is not realistic. The Commonwealth recognises that it has changed its role. It is of growing political influence, but not an economic grouping for its members' self-interest. The question of Europe or the Commonwealth was rightly described by Chief Anyaoku, who said:
Europe and the Commonwealth cannot be adversaries, but partners in a common cause.
The Government are not heeding the message that democracy on its own is not enough for our developing Commonwealth neighbours, despite the Minister's fine words. Overseas Development Administration bilateral aid to Commonwealth developing states has dropped nearly 30 per cent. I have the statistics here, so the Minister cannot deny that. Aid to Commonwealth multilateral bodies has also declined. The Commonwealth's multilateral aid arm, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, is also suffering from the restricted budget.
The Commonwealth gets some large sums of money from the aid and trade provision budget, however. For example, £234 million was wasted on the Pergau debacle and £2.9 million was wasted in Botswana on a flight information project—money that should have been spent on basic human needs such as health, education, safe water and sanitation, things that the countries of Africa desperately need. I have one simple statistic—the £234 million wasted on Pergau is close to the £215 million that was cut from the Commonwealth aid programme to Africa in 1992-93, which shows the Government's priorities.
When we look at the social and economic statistics for some of the developing countries in the Commonwealth, we can understand why those prestige projects are viewed with such contempt. Many countries, including Bangladesh, Malawi, Swaziland and Tanzania, still have an infant mortality rate of more than one in 10; five countries have a life expectancy of less than 50 years; and the number with access to safe drinking water is less than 20 per cent. in some of the rural populations of Africa.
The Minister mentioned debt. The debts which many Commonwealth countries owe to developed countries run to billions of pounds, with a handful owing more than 100 per cent. of their gross national product. There was outrage at the European development fund discussions in Brussels when Baroness Chalker embarrassed our European counterparts, disgraced the United Kingdom and showed contempt for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries present. She collapsed the talks when she proposed a cut of 30 per cent. from the European development fund. That shows the Government's lack of concern for many of our fellow Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman says that we should do more to help countries such as Bangladesh, but does he not find it curious that, under the existing Lomé system, more European development fund money goes to countries like Mauritius than to Bangladesh? We have many concerns about how the EDF operates, and it must be right for Britain to have a strong bilateral aid programme.

Mr. Foulkes: I have heard the arguments from the Minister and Baroness Chalker about why we should cut the European development fund to put more money, allegedly, into the bilateral programme, but that is not the answer; both programmes need to be maintained. The problem is that the whole fund for overseas aid has been continuously decreasing over the past 16 years, which is why the Government have to make that cut—they cannot maintain the bilateral aid programme on a reducing budget. The Minister must know that many excellent opportunities exist to use the Lomé convention and European Community mechanisms to aid the developing world. The EC-ACP Lomé relationship is separate from our direct relations with the Commonwealth, but equally valuable.
As the Minister said, the Commonwealth's future is to be examined by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. That is to be welcomed on both sides of the House. I certainly welcome the debate that will ensue as a result of that study, as it will show the advantages and benefits which exist for all members and it will analyse the Commonwealth's changing role and global importance. In all its activities, the Commonwealth benefits from shared practices and beliefs, and from the shared language of English which for most of us, though not all, is our native language. The modern association consists of three layers—Government; Commonwealth secretariat and other inter-governmental bodies; and the 77 Commonwealth non-governmental organisations.
The Minister mentioned the Commonwealth Foundation and I endorse what he said about it. I could say much more about the work that it does for young people and its range of activities. I had the privilege today of talking with a member of staff from the Commonwealth Foundation who, unlike the Prime Minister, was in Copenhagen at the social summit—

Miss Joan Lestor: I was there, too.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend was also there and she, too, will testify to the value of the social summit,


the networking which took place there and the links that it provides between Governments and non-governmental organisations. It is a great pity that the British Government were not properly represented there.
The Minister mentioned another Commonwealth institution—the Commonwealth Institute—and tried to take credit for the fact that the Commonwealth Institute will, it is hoped, survive. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) should perhaps take some credit for that, as he argued against a cut of £2.7 million in Government funding, but the Government ignored him, so it is no thanks to the Minister or the Government if the Commonwealth Institute continues. The Labour party hopes that, despite the elimination of the grant to the Commonwealth Institute over the next few years, the institute will nevertheless survive. It is another example of the Commonwealth's commitment to the work of young people and education.
I make no apology for quoting for a third time the excellent Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Anyaoku. He described the Commonwealth's central attribute as
its ability to bridge racial, ideological and economic divides and inequalities, assisted by its common language and common heritage.
Coupled with a commitment to democracy, the "Commonwealth way", as it has become known, is respected throughout the world. A commitment from the Minister to the Commonwealth's future role and a substantial aid budget to our partners in the Commonwealth would be welcomed by both sides of the House today.
We certainly look forward to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November, to which the Minister referred when he listed the range of topics on the agenda. We would look forward to it even more if there were an election in October and a Labour Government representing this country in Auckland to look after the true interests of the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He and I have worked long on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association matters, as he is joint treasurer and I am the recently retired chairman of the United Kingdom branch. One of the charms of that organisation is that, because all its members are parliamentarians, they are all honourable friends, so it is sometimes difficult not to address hon. Members across the Chamber as "my hon. Friends". The fact that we work together is a characteristic of that organisation.
I join other hon. Members in thanking the Leader of the House for providing time for this debate. Curiously enough, one of the benefits of the Jopling system is that it has made time available to get round to debates that we have wanted to have for many years but have been unable to have.
I also thank the Minister for his positive approach to the debate. Some of us were worried about the Government's underlying commitment to and feel for the Commonwealth, especially in the light of the

European debate. To have a positive approach demonstrated tonight is reassuring and I am certain that that reassurance will be felt beyond the Chamber.
I also thank him for his earlier reference to a remark that I made exactly a week ago when I raised the question of parliamentary workshops in southern Africa. Work is well advanced on preliminary budgets and, even now, feelers are being put out for an early meeting. I should like to be in a position to report to the half-yearly meeting of the international executive committee my thoughts on that matter, and the thoughts of my hon. Friends in the Government on it will be extremely helpful.
The benefits that those workshops can bring are enormous and it is well understood throughout the Commonwealth, although not yet, alas, throughout the world, that the CPA is unique in providing professional development of parliamentarians. We are just at the end of the 44th parliamentary seminar here in Westminster, which is aimed at that development of parliamentary expertise.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It finishes tomorrow.

Mr. Shepherd: As my hon. and learned Friend, the current chairman of the association's UK branch, says, it finishes tomorrow.
The debate is timely for us as we try to formulate thoughts in advance of the Auckland Heads of Government meeting in November. It is also timely in making it obligatory for us to go back and look at the Harare communiqué of 1991, which, as the Minister said, was a remarkable document as it was a reassurance and a restatement of Commonwealth principles. Paragraph 9 of the communiqué contains a declaration that is often quoted. I shall not quote it again as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley already set it out, but it is every bit as valid today as it was then. It is a good foundation. In paragraph 12, there is an explicit invitation to the CPA to play a full part in promoting the objectives of the Harare declaration.
As was acknowledged—because that was very much part of the theme, the CPA as parliamentary wing of the Commonwealth—the CPA has responded with vigour to that invitation. Mention has been made of the election monitoring and observing missions that have been undertaken in conjunction with the Commonwealth secretariat. We have the ability to draw on a vast resource of members in all parts of the world, who are capable of understanding what they are witnessing in the different areas in which the elections that they are invited to observe take place.
The specific realm of excellence and expertise of the CPA is that of post-election seminars. Several places have benefited from them and several will benefit during the year, not necessarily on the basis that I spoke about earlier, but in ways specific to the countries concerned. I believe that we have been helpful, in many cases, in shortening the learning curve of new Houses, so that they have not gone off the rails.
There is further scope to explore the use of the reservoir of parliamentary talent, and indeed former ministerial talent, which exists throughout the Commonwealth and the world, in conflict prevention and also possibly exploration and resolution. I do not


know that we have the ability to act as arbiters, but we have the ability to go in as disinterested neutrals, hear both sides and suggest ideas that might be explored. The parliamentary experience that we have available to us is important in that. I have always worried that, when parliamentarians retire, we discard them from our reservoir of talent. They are there to be drawn on while they are healthy and available, which is often the case. We should not ignore that.
In our plenary conferences and regional conferences, we have aimed to choose topics so as to draw out issues that are referred to specifically in the Harare declaration, and to enable Members of so many different Parliaments coming together to share their experiences and knowledge and to devise and derive tactics that they might deploy in their home states to solve various problems that we identify under those circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Minister headed the delegation to the parliamentary conference in Canada in October. He experienced at first hand the enthusiastic exchange of information. I am delighted that he is able to lead the delegation to the 1995 conference in Sri Lanka, when we shall take further the issue of the way in which we develop democracy in our Commonwealth.
The Minister told us some of the ideas for the Heads of Government meeting in Auckland in November, and I shall tell him about two specific aspects that I believe need to be discussed, among many. The first is what I call the profile of the Commonwealth. The profile of the Commonwealth has been low. From time to time, it has been raised as a result of the temperature in South Africa or, before that, Rhodesia, there has been a fight and the media have been interested in us because there has been a fight. However, for the most part, because we tend to work together and not to fight, we do not excite media interest. That is a disadvantage. It is an advantage for our work, but a disadvantage in terms of obtaining public understanding.
In that context, I welcome the visit made to Brussels on 2 March 1995 by Chief Anyaoku, when he spoke to the European Parliament and met members of the European Commission. That was valuable, especially given the fact that the 35 Commonwealth countries make up slightly less than half of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the Lomé convention. It is terribly important that there is greater awareness in the European Union of the nature of the Commonwealth.
We need to continue to increase the awareness of the Commonwealth in the world, of all that it stands for and of what it does. I mentioned the European Union. The United States of America is another part of the world that one might say is temporarily absent from the Commonwealth, or whatever one says, but in the USA there is not only an almost total lack of knowledge about the Commonwealth, but a lack of awareness that it even exists. Over the years in the House, I have had attached to me from time to time some of the young interns from universities. I always ask whether they have any awareness of the Commonwealth and, with one exception, the answer has been, "What is the Commonwealth?" It brings it home to me the fact that there is no knowledge.
Last summer, I was invited along with a CPA team to do a presentation at the National Conference of State Legislatures annual convention. That was a fascinating experience because the convention was very well attended. There is a ground swell of feeling in the United States at the moment that its system of checks and balances is so checked and balanced that nothing can be done; there is gridlock. All types of curious solutions are being suggested. My object, along with others, in being present was to demonstrate that there is another way.
Among the 200 state legislators who were present at that meeting, there was a total blankness and amazement that there was another way of running a Parliament or a legislature. They were fascinated, and want us to send another team to try to demonstrate at their next conference the way in which our system works.
I believe that that is good, in that those people can understand that there is a world outside; that there is another way of doing things. They find it mind-boggling that there should be no fewer than 120 legislatures around the world—almost three times as many as in the United States—working on that system, more or less, with variations and bits and bobs.
Further, I believe, given the spread of the Commonwealth to so many parts of the world, that that very large part of the world that I refer to as the Hispanic world should have a greater awareness of the nature of the Commonwealth. We just breathe on it through Belize and Guyana, but there should be far greater awareness, and we could avoid certain difficulties before they happen if there were that awareness. That is one big task that Heads of Government must tackle—to decide how to raise the profile of the Commonwealth without fighting to obtain reportage.
The second aspect that I wish Heads of Government to consider relates very much to fundamental political values that are referred to so often in various communiqués. The key to that lies in remarks made by Chief Anyaoku in his speech to the CPA plenary conference in Canada, when he floated the concept of linking democratic governance with active membership of the Commonwealth. His remarks were as follows:
I have had occasion to say in the past that military intervention in politics is a political aberration and a derogation from the democratic development of a country. I believe that as we progressively pursue the objectives of the Harare Declaration, the day will not be far away when representatives of military regimes will find no welcome in the councils of the Commonwealth.
That was a brave and sensible statement. I believe that it should be acted on.
The CPA already practises that concept, because among the criteria for active membership of our association is full democratic governance based upon universal suffrage. A member who slips from grace democratically is placed in abeyance. In CPA terms, that is fairly draconian, but it is our only sanction. It is not terminal, because a country is allowed back in the CPA as soon as that state of grace is restored.
One must be sensitive about what one advocates. I do not want to expel countries from the Commonwealth. Countries want to join it and the more countries we embrace, the better the chance we have of influencing change. By "we", I mean not the United Kingdom, but


Commonwealth members. There should be a penalty, however, against any group in a particular country that contemplates overthrowing or seeks to overthrow the democratically elected Government of that country. That group must consider the downsides to its action, and there should be some.
Each member country should know exactly where it stands and that the Commonwealth adopts a consistent approach. During the course of the year I passed through Fiji, to which my hon. Friend the Minister also referred. There is a distinct sense of injustice in that country, not because of the military coup and the subsequent peregrinations about how to restore a democratic Government, while recognising the various problems and interests, but because it is felt that Fiji was treated differently from other Commonwealth countries. People said to me, "Why were we expelled when Nigeria, the Gambia and Sierra Leone have not been expelled? Why were we treated differently?" They have a case.
There is a way of dealing with such a problem. It has been set out rather neatly in the communiqué from Islamabad, issued by senior officials, which addresses the question of non-payment of subscriptions to the Commonwealth secretariat. It made it clear that when a country had not paid for six years, it should be given special status. That special status would debar it from attending Heads of Government meetings. If that country had paid its subscriptions to the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation—CFTC—it would be able to continue to draw on that reservoir of aid.
To apply that arrangement sideways, when a country slips from democratic grace through a coup or whatever, it should not be accorded the privilege—that is the right word—of attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. That country should be placed in a special relationship to the Commonwealth. Should it continue to pay its subscription to the CFTC and to the Commonwealth as a whole, it should be able to use that particular avenue to guarantee developmental aid and non-governmental organisation involvement. In that sense, the citizenry is not disadvantaged, but we should not give a platform to those who achieve their power by non-democratic means. I would like such an arrangement to be on the agenda at Auckland.
While I have been chairman of the international executive committee of the CPA, I have endeavoured to use my vacation time—I emphasise that, for obvious reasons—to visit as many CPA branches as possible. Whenever I have had an overseas commitment, I have been able to bolt on a number of rapid visits round the branches. I try to do a "Heineken" by getting to those branches, especially the smaller ones, which other chairmen and officers have been unable to reach. It is something of a rarity to travel to the smaller branches.
It is also nice to talk to people outside the Parliaments. It is a humbling experience, because their awareness of and regard for the Commonwealth is awe-inspiring. That is not only humbling, but unnerving, because in the United Kingdom I do not find that same awareness, respect, understanding, regard or even knowledge of the ideals of the Commonwealth.
That lack of knowledge brings me to the Commonwealth Institute. I should declare that, as a governor of it since 1989, I have a non-pecuniary interest in the institute. It took me a little time to

understand what I was seeing. I acknowledge the downbeat nature of some of the remarks made last week and tonight about it. The lack of awareness, knowledge, understanding, respect or regard for the Commonwealth is a great reflection of the failure of the institute for many years. My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred to the falling numbers who attend the institute—800,000 people a year used to visit it; now that number is down to 250,000. That is a failure in itself, because the institute is failing to attract people.
I experienced trepidation when Lord Armstrong set out on a quinquennial review of the organisation. I was uplifted by his positive report. It was marvellous that the Commonwealth Institute was recognised for what it is. Along with the other governors, however, I was knocked down by the opinion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and rather startled when funding was withdrawn. In fact, I was shattered. On reflection, and painful though it has been, I endorse what the Government have done to the Commonwealth Institute. I do not think that change could have been made without that kick. I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough yet.
One of Lord Armstrong's recommendations was that doing nothing was not an option. Throwing money at the institute had, palpably, achieved nothing. It was clear that there had to be a change in thought. I welcome the arrival of Lord Armstrong, as a vice-chairman, on the board of governors. That in itself is a powerful statement of confidence by him in the future of the institute.
I also pay tribute to the powerful chairmanship of David Thompson, who has guided the changes made during the past few months. I should like to reflect on the imaginative thinking of Stephen Cox, the director general of the institute. The fact that so many of our colleagues are aware of what is happening to the institute, when previously they were not even aware of it, is a reflection of his lobbying capabilities. There is nothing wrong with that.
The House must understand that feeling at the Commonwealth Institute is upbeat. It is excited by and committed to what it is trying to do. The developments are exciting. Now that the thought processes have been let loose, we are grateful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its further support as the institute moves into a period of transition. The timetable must be very tight if we are not to lose momentum as new developments are made. The Government need to move fast when the business plan is submitted, which will be well within the deadline.
There is a narrow window of opportunity for construction work to take place while the conference season is in abeyance. If we run over that and lose the conference season, the cash flow outcome will be different and dangerous. Incidentally, anyone seeking an excellent conference venue in London should know that the Commonwealth Institute's conference centre is right up among the leaders. It is very good indeed and extremely competitive.
I should like the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury to match the lateral thinking that has been let loose within the Commonwealth Institute. There must be a team effort to take that to completion and there is a great penalty for doing nothing. If we get it wrong, if the thinking does not emerge and if there is


collapse, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be left with a mess. That would be a rotten message to the Commonwealth and the world, as well as there being a continuing bill of £590,000 a year, because that is the sum that is required to do nothing to the building. That cannot be avoided, at least not without primary legislation. The pitching of the Commonwealth Institute into a new orbit is welcome, and traumatic, and it is becoming a value-for-money operation as well.
One message is not enough. Politics is also about perception and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office needs to project a continuing interest in the Commonwealth Institute. I am not saying that it needs to continue with the grant, but a rose by any other name smells as sweet and a subscription showing commitment would be helpful in terms of outside attitudes and perceptions. As I said, we must bear it in mind that doing nothing and allowing collapse would mean a subscription of £590,000 a year, and we are not necessarily looking for that.
The Department for Education has to play its part as well, because the institute is an educational establishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke about its educational purpose, which is to create and develop awareness among the young as well as the old in this country, whatever their ethnic background, about the nature of the Commonwealth. The institute is the United Kingdom's only provider of education about the Commonwealth; the national curriculum includes a study of commonwealth. The educational activities are closely linked to the whole operation.
There is a Department for Education representative on the executive committee. I have been on that committee since 1989 and have listened to the DFE saying, "Yes, we agree." But as soon as there is a question of any money or help it says, "No, that is not our department, that is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We could not possibly get involved in that." As the institute has a positive educational role, I should like to see a positive educational input in financial terms from the DFE.
I support the institute's bid for a one-off grant to help it in its transition. It is a modest grant for the funding of phase 1 of its new education centre and I am certain that it would be a good investment. I should also like to see the DFE making a continuing subscription to the institute because of its palpable education mission.
There is great excitement in the institute about the new vision, which I call the Commonwealth vision—vit is the vision of the Commonwealth that the institute portrays. It will rapidly become one of Britain's major draws for visitors. I want to see that happen and the time scale cannot be allowed to slip. It must be sustained and all the help that the Government can give in that direction will be enormously appreciated.
Our Commonwealth could not be invented if we started from scratch. It is a remarkable institution that others have tried to replicate, but so far they have failed. We might be able to help them in another way. The Commonwealth is international and multiracial and it works on personal relationships. Those have to be the best relationships for people, whether they are part

of the Government or the governed. All Commonwealth countries need friends around the globe, and countries from outside the Commonwealth are seeking to engage our Commonwealth friends in friendship. The United Kingdom needs to look towards its friends in the Commonwealth so as to maintain that friendship, because we never know when we might need it. The Commonwealth is a forward-looking and pragmatic group of friends who have demonstrated their ability to work well together. We contribute a tremendous amount to the peoples of the world and we must continue to do that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The House is better informed about the Commonwealth Institute and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association as a result of the speeches by the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd).
I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Hereford about the fact that American interns had not heard the word "Commonwealth". The word is part of their own constitutional tradition, because the state of Virginia is properly described as the Commonwealth of Virginia. Other states are described in the same way. It is a pity that the interns did not understand that, at least for people in this country, a Commonwealth embraces much more than a single state.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made an enthusiastic speech, and revealed the answer to a mystery that has troubled me for some time. When, in February and November, many of us are pallid and sickly, I could never understand why the hon. Gentleman had such extraordinary reserves of energy and sported such a well-developed tan. All can now be revealed. As treasurer of the CPA, the hon. Gentleman, in an orgy of self-denial, has taken himself to places that are far from the bosom of his family and the mother of Parliaments, so as to advance the interests of the Commonwealth and the CPA.
It seems to have done him no harm, and that may encourage others among the 536 CPA members in the House to take a more active role.[Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman's humorous response to these shafts at his expense does him great credit.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made a number of significant points, dwelling to some extent upon the issue of the readmission of South Africa. When one considers the extent to which South Africa dominated Commonwealth affairs from 31 May 1961, when Mr. Verwoerd took it out, until 1 June 1994, when Mr. Mandela brought it back in, it is right to look at the Commonwealth to some extent through the eyes of South Africa as a rejoined member. That is especially relevant when one considers that Her Majesty the Queen is about to embark on what is justifiably described as an historic visit to South Africa, although it is her second visit.
What will South Africa be looking for as she returns to the Commonwealth? There is an obvious answer, and Mr. Mandela has been totally frank about it. The South African Government will be looking for the advantages of trade, commercial opportunity and aid. Some telling points have already been made in the debate about

 
the importance of aid and the extent to which, in the Commonwealth at large, there is, to put it as gently as I can, disappointment that some of the aspirations on aid have not been met by the Government to the extent that hon. Members in all parts of the House would have preferred.
South Africa will also be looking for the diplomatic influence that the Commonwealth can bring to bear on so much of world affairs, and for the opportunity of cultural exchange about which we have heard in the debate. South Africa is rightly described as sports-mad, and will be looking for the additional sporting opportunities that will now be available to it.
At Murrayfield stadium in November, as the South African rugby team was eviscerating my native and beloved Scotland, for a moment I disloyally wished that the Gleneagles agreement was still in force. A nation for which sport has always been extremely important is at last being allowed to take its rightful place in those sports in which it is truly world-class. So there we have it—the economic, diplomatic, cultural and sporting factors. Those are the benefits that South Africa undoubtedly looks for on its return to the Commonwealth.
I want to consider the interests of the Commonwealth's African members. One remembers the extent to which Africa was a central battleground, sometimes in literal terms, during the cold war. That war has come to an end. As a consequence, the super-powers' interest in Africa has waned. The Commonwealth is extremely important for its African members, because it allows them the opportunity for a collective voice.
For obvious reasons, the United Kingdom has rediscovered emphasis on the European Union, although the extent to which that will be carried through is something on which, at this stage at least, no final conclusion has been reached. The opening up of eastern Europe has necessarily focused people's attention away from Africa. The possibility of peace in the middle east has had a similar diversionary effect. The emphasis on the Pacific rim and the enormous economic opportunities that are available have also diverted attention. One could even say that the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement has drawn Canada, for so long a prominent member of the Commonwealth, into a relationship with the United States of America and Mexico.
For its African members, therefore, the Commonwealth has become yet more important as the eyes of the world have been diverted in other directions because of those political developments.
That collective voice has an influence on the UK—and through the UK on, I hope, the European Union—and on Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which are developed countries. Therefore, that opportunity for a collective voice persuades some countries that have never been members of the Commonwealth to show an interest in joining. They include Mozambique, Cameroon, Angola and Eritrea. One can say, without being patronising, that new democracies in Africa have much to learn from the Commonwealth and from the traditions of parliamentary government, about which we heard in the eloquent speech that was made earlier.
Some regimes are more in need than others of the lessons of parliamentary government. I thought that the hon. Member for Hereford embarked on an interesting debate when he said that the Commonwealth should not treat it as an entirely internal matter if a country that had conducted itself with proper parliamentary democratic traditions should change into a military rulership or something of that sort.
The Commonwealth's strength and credibility will be maintained only if it robustly condemns the replacement of properly constituted civilian rule by military rule, and large-scale human rights violations. Exclusion, special status and other such measures may be difficult to achieve—one can imagine all sorts of efforts being made at self-protection against sanctions of that sort.
As the hon. Gentleman said, however, such measures could do nothing but enhance the credibility of the Commonwealth as an institution embodying certain principles. Membership of the Commonwealth should be continued and allowed only if those principles remained at the heart of the institutions of each member.
I shall slightly divert from the comments of the hon. Gentleman for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). One might say that I take a slightly less visionary view of the Commonwealth. There must be some realism about what we are capable of achieving. I believe, as to some extent my remarks have underlined, that the Commonwealth's greatest contribution probably lies in the promotion of democracy and in the protection of human rights. That involves the extent to which the Harare declaration can be turned from a set of principles into practical proposals that are fully implemented.
Leaving aside the question of special status, suspension and other such measures, in a sense the Commonwealth's only effective sanctions are moral pressure and the ability to communicate, which a common language and common traditions undoubtedly confer. It would be idealistic, but wholly unrealistic, to expect that the Commonwealth as presently constituted could resolve the difficulties that exist between India and Pakistan.
One can argue with some force, however, that, if those difficulties were to reach their most acute state, and if, for example, an outbreak of hostilities took place—there have been, and no doubt will be, occasions when that seems likely—the Commonwealth would at least be available at the beginning to offer the opportunity for mediation, and to endeavour to persuade the adversaries to find a way of resolving their difficulty.
In relation in India and Pakistan, the Commonwealth would have a unique capability—no other institution would have that. I take a more realistic view than the hon. Gentleman—I believe that I am right to describe it like that—but I acknowledge that moral pressure, the capacity to communicate, and the existence of common traditions could be effective weapons in endeavouring to solve either hostilities or some substantial political disagreement that might arise between Commonwealth members.
One matter is a puzzle. I have frequently asked myself this question. What would have happened to the Commonwealth if apartheid had not been carried out in South Africa, and if that country had not left the


Commonwealth? What would have happened to all that moral indignation that characterised the meetings of Commonwealth Heads of State for such a long time? As with all speculations, it is impossible to give a realistic answer, but we are entitled to say that those meetings will no longer be as acrimonious as they were—we hope——and that the important task is to ensure that they become more fruitful and that the Commonwealth is more effective, now that it has solved its most significant internal political problem.
Last year, I had occasion to visit a cemetery near one of the battlefields in Europe. One only has to do that to realise just how strong the tradition is to which I have referred. The number of people from Commonwealth countries who died in western Europe fighting against Nazism is staggering to behold. To hon. Members who have not taken that opportunity, I recommend it as an extraordinary indication of the fact that the battle in Europe was fought by the Commonwealth as much as by the UK.
That common history and tradition clearly informs our attitudes today. It gives me hope in two respects. First, there is a practical thing we can do. Many of our discussions in the United Nations are given over to effective peacekeeping or peacemaking. We need not get into that debate this evening, but if ever an opportunity existed for the Commonwealth to take an active role, it surely lies in peacekeeping. We share those common traditions and a common language. Many senior officers have had common training as well.
I hope that, in the development of the Commonwealth's role, some consideration will be given to the extent to which Commonwealth battalions, or battalions from Commonwealth countries, may be allowed to take part more in relation to the likely increased requirements and obligations of the UN to provide peacekeeping forces.
I want to finish with the comment that has punctuated my speech, which is that it is in the promotion of democratic values and the recognition of human rights that the Commonwealth's relevance is to be found. A debate such as this gives us the opportunity to underline the possibility that a commitment of that sort would create.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: In this week in which 51 flags fly in Parliament square representing the Commonwealth, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government for responding so promptly and with such enthusiasm to my request at business questions two weeks ago for a debate devoted entirely to the Commonwealth during the week following Commonwealth day, which was Monday 13 March. I wish the other representations that I make ceaselessly to the Government were taken up with such enthusiasm.
As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has reminded us, this is the first Commonwealth debate held in the House since 1987. It is a disgrace that an institution that is so important to us in Britain has somehow managed to slip the attentions of all of us as legislators, and has not been the subject of a special debate. It has been subsumed

in every other debate on foreign affairs. Perhaps the fact that we are having this debate is a manifestation of the remarkable and exciting resurgence of interest and activity in this great international institution in which Britain plays such an essential part.
If Dean Acheson had still been with us, he would be saying today that Britain, having lost an empire, has now found several roles. After all, there is hardly any major international organisation today, whether it be the United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries or the European Union, in which Britain does not sit at the top table, influencing important future policy. Of all the great institutions, the one in which we experience the greatest warmth and feel so much a part is the Commonwealth.
It is a great voluntary, charterless union of nations. It is the inheritor of the days of empire. It now numbers 51 nations, ruling over 1.5 billion people. South Africa and Pakistan have at last come back to join, as has Namibia, which was never a part of the British empire. Mozambique, Cameroon, Angola and Eritrea have shown an interest in joining, despite having no direct cultural links with our union in the past. An article in The Independent on Sunday recently said that Ireland was considering coming closer to the Commonwealth, and someone told me that Japan was showing some interest, if only as part of a joint venture.
During my early political lifetime of a generation and more, the question was often asked, "What is the use of the Commonwealth? It is no more than a talking shop. It does nothing and stands for very little." That is said no longer. The Commonwealth is now expanding and showing a new vitality. Why? I think that it is because its existing members, its former members and its aspiring members see a relevance and importance for it in the new world order.
In the past few years, the old order of the super-powers facing each other off in a cold war has disintegrated. Africa, once a focus of super-power interest, has become potentially weaker without strong allies. The old imperatives of communist power and compulsion have dissolved, and its vassal states are in danger of losing the guidance and control which for so long masqueraded as stability.
There is now a new freedom in the world. There are the beacons of democracy, free enterprise and the rule of law, but there is also a need for a new community which will foster and develop those beacons. There is a need for the newly independent nation states in the new order all over the world to attain new goals.
First, they need to maintain their independence by achieving economic self-reliance. That means joining a community with a common economic interest and opportunities for trade and industrial development. The Commonwealth could help to provide that with the investment of the major parties in countries such as South Africa and with the links that Britain has with the European Union.
Secondly, those countries need to be a part of a community with common security interests, in which their concerns can be expressed and their voices listened to in a way that has been no longer possible now that the old orders have dissolved.
Thirdly, there is a need to be closer to the beacons of democracy, free enterprise and the rule of law that are guiding those nations away from the rocks of totalitarianism in which those countries have engaged hitherto.
Fourthly, at a time of resurgent nationalism and racial conflict, the community that they join must be genuinely multiracial and concerned for human rights and civil liberties. The 1991 Harare declaration states that the Commonwealth would work, inter alia, for fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, colour, creed and political belief.
Fifthly, such nations will inevitably feel more comfortable in a community where there is a common language and a common history and culture. Although not all the aspirants to membership meet that requirement, broadly, the Commonwealth provides all that, and, in addition, the head of the Commonwealth—the Queen—embodies in her office and her person some of the best of the traditional features of our communal history.
Because of our shared history and traditions, particularly our regard for other races, there is a warmth of feeling among Commonwealth members that one does not feel so strongly in the other institutions in which Britain plays a part. The Commonwealth is and feels like a family—a family of nations.
As we have heard, over the past two weeks the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which I currently have the privilege to be chairman, has been hosting one of its regular seminars for Common wealth parliamentarians. As Briton eats, drinks and discusses with Kenyan, as Canadian discusses with Indian, New Zealander with Pakistani and Australian with South African and Falkland Islander, we all feel as if we are talking to our cousins—members of our family. It is quite extraordinary. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for his kind remarks about the sort of work that the CPA does in that family environment.
Many organisations actively promote the Commonwealth ideal—they have been mentioned in several of the excellent speeches this evening. Since Parliaments are so central to the Commonwealth, it is not surprising that the CPA, with its international office as well as its United Kingdom branch here in Westminster, plays a such a prominent role. We represent the interests of over 10,000 Commonwealth parliamentarians in 123 legislatures in 47 Commonwealth countries.
The United Kingdom branch has 962 members, which includes 565 Members of Parliament—nearly all of us. I have approached some of our friends the Liberal Democrats, but they are committed to so many activities in the House, having to keep pace with the various Departments of State, that I accept that it may be a little difficult. However, I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) would encourage one or two of his hon. Friends to consider joining. I do not accuse them for one moment of not being interested in the Commonwealth, but they are so few in number that they have to spread themselves thinly to cover all their commitments.
Three hundred and fifty members of our branch are former Members of Parliament. It is one of the largest branches of the CPA worldwide. Because of the high reputation enjoyed by our organisation, we had no fewer than 235 full applications from men of great distinction in the military and public services in answer to our advertisement for a new branch secretary to follow the redoubtable Captain Peter Cobb RN, who has served us for 15 years and, sadly, is having to retire.
Our model of parliamentary democracy—the Westminster model—has been exported worldwide. With the aid of workshops, seminars, visits and conferences, we continue to maintain that model and influence countries that seek to embrace it. In this context, I need not repeat many of the points made today, but we maintain that model in close liaison with the international CPA, which is chaired with great distinction by my predecessor at the United Kingdom branch of the CPA, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). My hon. Friend's team of officials is led by the distinguished former Speaker of the Ontario Parliament, Mr. Arthur Donahoe QC.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I must put the record straight; the gentleman is the former Speaker of the Nova Scotia provincial assembly.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Our family is so wide, and we have so many cousins, that I sometimes forget what their allegiances are. Canada is and always has been a great part of the Commonwealth; whether Arthur Donahoe comes from Nova Scotia or Ontario is of little importance to us, although no doubt of great importance to him.
The metamorphosis from an empire with obligatory membership to a Commonwealth where membership is freely entered into, and even sought after, is astonishing. It is a sign of how long-established ties can evolve to become relevant even in a hugely changed world. However, to compliment the Commonwealth must not be the end of the story. We must continue to ensure that it remains relevant to its members and that we in Britain—in the mother of Parliaments—play a central role in developing and strengthening a very great institution. How can we do that?
First, we must develop our own economic links with Commonwealth countries. Our recent preoccupation with Europe may at times have blinded us to the fact that, whereas that institution commands less than half our total overseas earnings, the Commonwealth commands well over half. To the great markets of Asia, especially India, Hong Kong and Malaysia, we hope to add additional investment, and therefore earnings, in the great sleeping economic giant of South Africa.
In order to justify our involvement in these great economies, we have to be willing to stimulate the development of those countries with help in the form of training and aid and the development of their human resources, police, military establishments, public administration and their management skills, especially in the private sector. There is a tremendous reservoir for mutual economic development in the Commonwealth, and we must take these markets very seriously in the years ahead.
Secondly, we must keep bright the beacons of parliamentary democracy, the rule of the law and free enterprise capitalism—beacons lighted, let it be said, in


the Thatcher years. Without those beacons, the emerging nations may lose heart and revert—so delicate may some of the new states be—not to totalitarianism of the left but perhaps to totalitarianism of the right. With naked nationalism always comes racism, and that is the reverse of the multicultural, multi-ethnic society for which the Commonwealth stands. We must so resource ourselves that no invitation to advise, no request for guidance based on our wide experience and no invitation to visit or be visited, can be refused.
I know that the Government value the work of the CPA and will ensure that it remains properly financed. It is a very small price to pay for the great good it does to the very infrastructure of the international society. I remember especially the pleasurable help that many of us were able to give in the South African elections almost a year ago.
Thirdly, we must be aware that the new world order is throwing up enormous and potentially cataclysmic problems, and that the small emerging nations are especially vulnerable to the horrors of drugs, with which comes organised crime. Money laundering and economic crime is now becoming so widespread, with consequences so frightening, as to make our concerns about strengthening democracy seem almost as irrelevant as shifting the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.
Three cases of serious fraud in the United Kingdom alone currently allege deficiencies exceeding by several hundred million pounds the total annual figure for burglaries in England and Wales. When one considers that most fraud is never investigated or its perpetrators caught, let alone brought to trial and convicted, one gains some idea of how grave the situation is in this country—and, of course, other countries.
Millions of pounds can be moved from one country to another in the twinkling of an eye without any police force being aware of how, where, why or when it happened until long after anything can be done about it. The smaller developing nation states of the Commonwealth are especially vulnerable to exploitation in this respect, and we must share our knowledge, intelligence and police with them.
The value of the worldwide cocaine trade alone has been put by those who know at several hundred thousand US dollars—as much as the entire gross national product of a country such as Britain. With such money, land is bought and developed, factories bought and constructed, and businesses, including banks, set up. They process the laundered money and invest it in legitimate businesses, where it grows and inevitably forms a significant part of national economies. Some Commonwealth countries are very vulnerable, and need all the help we can give them.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I agree that a number of small Commonwealth countries that have active offshore financial industries are vulnerable in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman outlines. I am sure that he shares my pleasure in the fact that Britain gives help in the form of technical advice on banking regulation and policing, but does he share my concern that some

of the offshore economies have that help paid for in part out of the Overseas Development Administration budget?
Does he believe that the relatively small sums of money involved—tens of thousands, or, at most, hundreds of thousands of pounds—could be met by increasingly slightly the fees for offshore businesses that register in states such as Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable intervention, but it would better be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister who will be summing up. I would rather not discuss fees and their scale, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We must pull out all the stops and share our knowledge, expertise and influence, and also the information that the Commonwealth countries, including the smaller ones, can provide for us.
Cocaine is not the only problem. Pakistan and India have enormous problems with heroin, as does Hong Kong. Cannabis is a problem in the Caribbean islands such as Jamaica. There are millions and millions of addicts, and billions and billions of dollars are being made by drug-trafficking operators looking for financial systems to infiltrate, Governments to buy and economies to undermine.
How long will pure, uncorrupted democracies last, even if we help to make them more representative and responsible by the influence that we can exert through our Commonwealth parliamentary associations? What will happen if we do not, as parliamentarians of the Commonwealth, take the lead in fighting the terrifying evils of drug and financial crime by genuine international co-operation?
The members of the Commonwealth can work together in an effort to wipe out drug crops by providing farmers in Commonwealth countries and others with alternative livelihoods. We can act by encouraging stronger laws and stronger policing to trace, seize and freeze the assets of drug traffickers. We should help to ensure that Commonwealth countries sign the United Nations conventions against drugs, implement the 40 recommendations of the G7 summit financial action task force, which set out best practice, and implement also the 21 recommendations of the Caribbean financial action task force under the chairmanship of Trinidad and Tobago.
Many activities are taking place. We must use all the force and persuasion we can within the Commonwealth to try to ensure that the maximum advantage is taken of the work that is being done. We hope that, in future, our CPA seminars will target world problems of the sort to which I have drawn attention, rather than holding general seminars on general matters of interest. If we home in on some of the problems, we may be able to achieve more mileage in dealing with needs and opportunities.
Fourthly, I so agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford that we must build up the knowledge and understanding of our children about the Commonwealth. They must learn in our schools what the Commonwealth stands for, and why it is such an important part of world society. They must understand why it is something in which we in Britain can take so much pride. In a sense, it is almost a national organisation. Britain has been so


much at the centre of the Commonwealth. We continue to play our part, but no longer as the head of the empire. We are sillt one of the important players.
We have all rightly sung the praises of the Commonwealth this evening. Its vital role in the world—I hope that this encapsulates my theme—must not be underrated. It cannot be denied that the Commonwealth is a great force for good in the world, and a vital part of Britain's inheritance.

Mr. George Galloway: I shall resist the temptation to join battle with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on the contribution made to the well-being of the 1.5 billion people of the Commonwealth—the vast majority of them extremely poor—by free-market capitalism, let alone by the Thatcher years.
I add my congratulations to those already directed to the Leader of the House for organising the debate. It has been a fine debate and we must hope that seven years will not pass until the next one. Such debates should be annual parliamentary events. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have made that point, or similar points, will be listened to by the Leader of the House.
Britain can be justifiably proud of the way in which it has made the adjustment from being primus inter pares as the head of an empire to being a member of the family of the Commonwealth. Having lost our empire, we have, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, found not one but many roles in the world.
We have a Commonwealth upon which the sun never sets. I was once upbraided by an old man in a poor village in central Africa. He said, with what I thought was great prescience, that the sun never set on the British empire because God would never trust an Englishman in the dark. I do not know quite what he meant. It is true, however, that we have adjusted to a new role with some distinction.
It is true also that the Commonwealth is held in much greater affection elsewhere within it than it is here in the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why we should have an annual debate. It is also one of the reasons why, as has been said, we need to be more innovative and more generous in our support for institutions such as the Commonwealth Institute. Generally, we should seek to put more power at the elbow of the Commonwealth.
Bearing in mind the good nature of the debate, I say with some trepidation that it has been slightly too self-congratulatory and has pictured the Commonwealth in just a little too rosy a way. I declare an interest because I have recently returned from a visit to Pakistan over the new year holiday as a guest of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It is a country with which I have close links. I hold its highest civil award, and I take a close interest in its affairs, as do other hon. Members.
Having just returned to the Commonwealth fold, Pakistan is extremely sore about the apparent lack of interest of the Commonwealth, and of the United Kingdom as a leading player within it, in the dreadful problems that are afflicting its fragile democratic Government. The burden of my remarks will be on that

subject, on relations between Pakistan and India and on ways in which the Commonwealth could play a constructive part in resolving some of the problems.
During an interview with the International Herald Tribune, Benazir Bhutto said:
Pakistan today is the frontline state against the forces of extremism and fanaticism. It is a wall of modernity against all those values that undermine global stability. Pakistan has a constitutional and democratic government. It ought to be strengthened and supported".
I agree with her. Pakistan is in the front line. It is under tremendous onslaught from the forces of darkness. It is incumbent upon the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth to do everything possible to buttress the democratic system in Pakistan and to help it to deal with the many problems that it faces.
The problem of drugs has been alluded to by several hon. Members. No other country in the world, with the possible exception of Colombia, is more afflicted by the big-time, big-business, organised drug trade. There are drug barons who are vastly wealthy with huge, feudal armies at their disposal. They are extremely heavily armed. That is something to which I shall return.
Pakistan is afflicted by the awful sectarian disaster of Karachi. In 1994, more than 1,000 people died as a result of political violence. In the first three months of this year, many hundreds more have perished, including, over the past week or so, two diplomats from the American mission in Karachi, with 15 people dying in a mosque here and a dozen at a mosque there. People are being gunned down from passing cars and up alleyways in political violence that is showing every sign of spiralling out of control.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan was right to say in Karachi the other day that to some extent violence is being encouraged and, in part, financed by foreign powers. Iran is involved, for sure, in the new Shi'ite-Sunni conflict in Karachi. Involved also is India, which has recently had its consulate closed in Karachi because of the role being played by Indian secret intelligence agents in fomenting communal violence.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan was right to say that the west had flooded Pakistan and Afghanistan with high-tech armaments for the holy warriors, the mujaheddin, who were fighting the holy war against communism and the Soviet Union, and that has led to a situation where, in Karachi alone, there are 100,000 illegally held automatic arms capable of absolute devastation in the crowded marketplaces and mosques in which they are increasingly being used.
There are millions of weapons in the wrong hands in Pakistan and they are now spreading throughout the country. They are in the hands of those noble warriors who used to be lauded by Sandy Gall and others on "News at Ten" when they were doing the bidding—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has returned to the Chamber. They were fighting for a world safe for free-market capitalism, in which it could flourish. However, those people are now using their weapons to undermine the very existence of the democratic state in Pakistan. They are murdering people on a daily basis and they pose an armed threat to the existence of democracy itself.


Then there is Kashmir. It just will not do for Britain to walk away from the question of Kashmir. It will not do for the Commonwealth to say, "It has nothing to do with us." Kashmir is a legacy of the end of empire. It is a legacy of the failure of the British Government at the time—yes, a Labour Government—properly to manage the partition and all that flowed from it.
A reign of terror exists in Kashmir. Six hundred and fifty thousand Indian soldiers occupy illegally, in breach of United Nations resolutions, the tiny state of Jammu and Kashmir. Atrocities of a horrifying kind are an everyday occurrence there. That is happening in the Commonwealth—a point that has not been touched upon in the debate so far, except tangentially.
On my last visit there, I interviewed women who had been raped by Indian security forces. A woman of 18 had been raped by more than 100 soldiers in a little village on the outskirts of Srinigar. I took photographs of men whose feet had been severed by the swords of Indian soldiers in the Commonwealth, in the past 12 months, during this reign of terror in the valley of Jammu and Kashmir.
Atrocities are taking place and we are doing nothing about them. I must tell the Minister that, although he battled bravely to try to recover some of the damage done, the recent visit to India and Pakistan by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was a disaster for the people of Kashmir and Pakistan. His very definite tilt in respect of British policy, moving it from one of sitting on the fence to one of climbing down on the Indian side of the fence because of the free-market capitalist opportunities which are opening up in the new post-Soviet India, was an absolute disgrace.
The Secretary of State said that the UN resolutions on Kashmir were increasingly irrelevant. Leaving aside the issue of when a UN resolution becomes irrelevant and of sending the message to aggressors that, if they can hang on to their spoils long enough, the UN resolutions condemning them will one day become irrelevant, the facts are that we have an obligation as the head of the Commonwealth and as the former imperial power to try to control the tragedy and disaster in Kashmir.
I shall explain how we can do that. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, we are in a unique position. The Commonwealth is in a unique position—because it contains both India and Pakistan and, therefore, Kashmir—to kick-start some kind of negotiating process which long ago ran into the snow in Kashmir. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that the Simla agreement somehow supersedes the UN resolutions. The Simla agreement calls on the matter to be resolved between India and Pakistan, but India will not even discuss the question of Kashmir with Pakistan, claiming that it is an internal matter, when all hon. Members know that it is not.
We are in a position to say, "Well, all right. If it is some kind of internal matter, let's deal with it in-house, inside the Commonwealth family." We can set up an eminent persons group of the kind that worked so well and so effectively over the South African problem. There are plenty of distinguished, superannuated statespeople at large in the Commonwealth family, such

as Bob Hawke of Australia and Kaunda of Zambia. Even the heroine of the hon. and learned Member for Burton, Lady Thatcher, could play a role in this, with her stature in many parts of the world. I am not sure whether it is deserved, but it exists. It is possible to put together an eminent persons group which could play the kind of shuttlecock role between India and Pakistan that could kick-start the process.
I must tell the Minister that the cost of not doing that is not only the continuation of the disaster of massive repression in Kashmir and the inevitable corruption of democratic life and civil liberties and the rule of law in India which that represents. Kashmir is a dagger at the heart of the Government of Pakistan and of democracy itself in Pakistan. The banner that is flown by the fanatics of the Islamic right in Pakistan is that democracy will never resolve the question of Kashmir: only a Pakistan bristling, armed to the teeth and, if possible, nuclear armed, will ever force India to disgorge that which it holds illegally in the form of Jammu and Kashmir.
That is a running sore; ultimately, it will engulf democratic politics in Pakistan unless the issue is grasped by somebody. I argue that it would be better that that somebody was the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom than anybody else, because we are so uniquely placed to fill that role.
The Government of Pakistan deserve the support of all people of good will in this House. The Prime Minister bravely confronted the zealots in the past few weeks over the outrage of the sentencing to death of two Christians for painting slogans on a mosque. The Prime Minister of Pakistan immediately declared that that was completely unacceptable, that she was shocked and horrified by it, and that the verdict must not stand. The higher court in Pakistan, having considered the matter, quashed the sentences.
I hope that the Minister will believe me when I say that great anger and rage was caused among the extremists in Pakistan by the stand that she took, but she took it. They feel great anger when she takes a stand against the drug barons, too, but there is also great anger and frustration in Pakistan when democratic politics yields nothing in the context of the Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.
For several reasons, therefore—for India's sake, for Kashmir's sake and for the sake of Pakistan and of the Commonwealth—we should do something about that situation before it is too late. I hope that the Minister has heard what I have said.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I speak as someone who today celebrates his 19th anniversary in this place when I say that one of the excellent benefits of attending a debate such as this in the House of Commons is that if one listens carefully to the thoughtful and sometimes passionate speeches, one can learn a great deal that helps to advance one's own thinking. I hope that it will not be Back Benchers alone who derive a useful few hours of adult education from the debate, but that those on the Front Benches, especially Ministers, and their civil service advisers, will derive some benefit too. They would do well to listen to some of the knowledgeable and occasionally


passionate speeches about different aspects of the Commonwealth, such as many of those that have already been made.
I do not have much that is original or even passionate to say, but I want to add my brief contribution because I too attach great importance to the Commonwealth as an institution. I must declare a sentimental interest: I was born in Simla, nearly 52 years ago, at the tail end of the British Raj, and I have watched from afar as India has developed from being the jewel in the crown of the British empire to being a leading and vital member of the Commonwealth of nations, on a par with any other of its members.
I was especially interested, therefore, in what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said about the tragic and needless continuing conflict in Kashmir and Jammu. I shall say a few amateur words of my own about that later.
I could not possibly match the encomium of the Commonwealth as a whole delivered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who also spoke powerfully and interestingly about combating international crime, especially drug-related crime. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Government will do everything possible to follow up my hon. and learned Friend's advice, because it seemed to me that he spoke with great knowledge of the law and order issues involved.
From what little I know about such matters, I realise that Britain has a great deal of expertise in this matter, which could be applied to such problems. For example, MI6 seems to be able to spend a large sum on its new headquarters just across the river, and the press tell us that it is seeking a new role in the world now that the Soviet Union has collapsed. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to speak about this publicly, but one new role for MI6 might be playing a constructive part in what must be global efforts to counter the international drugs trade and all the racketeering that goes with it.
I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) a strong interest in ensuring that the Commonwealth Institute survives, transforms itself and prospers in its new public-private partnership, especially as by 1999 it is scheduled to be devoid of all direct public support. Like my hon. Friend, I have seen the exhibitions mounted by the admirable Stephen Cox and his colleagues showing what they intend to do with the site. I too have visited the site and seen its great potential, which remains despite the fact that, alas, the building was constructed at a time and in a way that makes it fiendishly expensive and difficult to maintain.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a contribution towards that necessary transitional expense by my former Department, the Department for Education, which obviously has a clear interest in ensuring that the Commonwealth Institute performs its tasks well in future. I hope that there will be no needless and sterile talk of fighting over departtnental boundaries, because it is both in the Government's interest and in the national interest that the institute should make the transition.
One has only to ask oneself the rhetorical question: how would the French handle the situation if a question arose concerning a comparable institution with a potentially important role to play in supporting and

popularising the francophone community? They would grasp the opportunity with both hands, and they would be right to do so. This country should not be afraid to emulate such an example.
I have said to the managerial people at the Commonwealth Institute that in the fund-raising efforts that I believe that they are to make, they should make a serious effort to look for "high net worth" individuals, of which there are many more now than there were in 1979, courtesy of the policies of the Government as well as other factors. Those people should he sought not only within Britain but throughout some of the more dynamic and prosperous Commonwealth countries. The institute should approach them and appeal to their sense of altruism and their wider sense of civic responsibility, so as to secure an injection of private money into what is obviously a worthwhile institution.
I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister concerning the Commonwealth in general. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may be able to say something about each of them in his winding-up speech. I agree with all the hon. Members who have either explicitly or implicitly underlined the fact that the Commonwealth, rather like the Pope, does not have all that many divisions directly in its own name. It has a history and considerable moral authority in all parts of the world, and it should use those to exert a constructive influence, especially with regard to the problems that have led to intractable difficulties such as those in Kashmir described by the hon. Member for Hillhead.
The first question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend, and about which I should like to hear a little more, is: what precisely have the Government sought to do within the context of our Commonwealth role to assist in conflict resolution in Kashmir, the example that the hon. Gentleman gave? Just as important, in my view, is the example of the internal difficulties in Sri Lanka.
From time to time, I talk to sixth formers in my constituency, as I suspect that other hon. Members do. At a recent meeting, I exchanged views with lower sixth form girls at Wallington high school for girls in my constituency, and I was struck by the fact that three or four questions were asked from different quarters about the situation in Sri Lanka. I was asked why the Government appear relatively impotent in taking effective action to influence that situation, and those young idealistic girls specifically asked me whether we could not do more through the Commonwealth connection to help to resolve the dispute.
That is especially relevant because, as the House will know, the situation is not, strictly speaking, an internal matter for Sri Lanka, as the Indian Government have played a considerable role in supporting the Tamils. The House would like to know that the Government take issues such as Kashmir and Sri Lanka seriously and are using their best endeavours to exploit all the opportunities and all the contacts and networks of the Commonwealth to bring about a peaceful solution to those tragic problems.
My second question is about another problem that has concerned me for years—the non-proliferation regime. Of course, that has a connection with the India-Pakistan dispute. A review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is to take place shortly. I


understand that Her Majesty's Government strongly support the indefinite renewal of the treaty, and that is all to the good; but it is important for us to give an earnest of our intentions. We must subscribe to the spirit of the comprehensive test ban treaty, which in the minds of many is linked with progress on non-proliferation. We must set an example to "threshold" states—and even states such as India and Pakistan, which are way beyond the threshold. Those states have demonstrated their capacity to cause nuclear explosions, and, for all I know, have the ballistic capacity to deliver nuclear warheads. We cannot assume that, just because the cold war is over, the threat to the people and environment of the globe has diminished.
If anything, the dangers are greater rather than less in the new multi-polar, fragile world, because the condominium between the United States and what was the Soviet Union no longer exists. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something reassuring—something that would reassure my young constituents who want to believe that they can grow up and, in their adult lives, make their contribution in a time of peace and prosperity.
I am glad that the Commonwealth now provides such a wide and rapidly growing range of trade and investment opportunities, not only for this country but for the countries in which we invest and with which we trade. Over dinner the other day, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, paying one of his rare visits to this country—obviously, he performs his duties abroad on behalf of Britain, and rightly so—reminded me that Britain is now the second largest exporter to India.
Everyone thinks of China as the world's monster market, but we should consider India's natural resources, as I have done from afar. We should consider its human capital—its skills, its links with Britain, its academic achievements, its scientific expertise and the commitment to free markets that has followed from the new Indian policy. All those assets bring great benefits not only to this country, in terms of trade and payments, but to the Indian people.
They desperately need the lubrication of growing prosperity to counter extremism, develop their country and, hopefully, limit the dangers of fundamentalism—Hindu fundamentalism or any other kind. Limiting fundamentalism will not only lessen the risk to the future of India—India's very existence is a miracle, given the problems of the Punjab and so forth—but help, at least at the margin, to reduce the dangers of a polarised attitude to critical questions such as the future of Kashmir, on which I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead.
I bring no special expertise to the debate, but I have enormous sympathy with our friends and fellow family members in the Commonwealth nations. I believe that the Commonwealth has a great future—indeed, probably a greater future in the 21st century than it had in the second half of the 20th. It is up to us, as the mother nation of a great institution, to help to take it forward on a basis of equality, mutual respect and adherence to altruistic policies of the sort that I have described. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us all.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Let me begin by paying tribute to Sir Charles Kerruish, president of the Tynwald, who will shortly celebrate 50 years of continuous service to his island legislature. He is the father of that House, and almost indisputably the father of Commonwealth parliamentarians. When I met him and other fellow parliamentarians on the Isle of Man on Commonwealth day, I realised the importance that members of both large and small jurisdictions attach to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It was with great pride that the Tynwald Members commemorated their island's membership of the Commonwealth. As others have pointed out, the United Kingdom is probably unique in not celebrating Commonwealth day to any great extent, or at least to the extent that it is celebrated in other parts of the world.
On that day, I was able to renew my acquaintance with friends from the Isle of Man Parliament whom I had met at the CPA conference in October. It was a privilege to be part of the United Kingdom delegation on that occasion, and I shall always remember the re-entry of the South African delegation to the plenary session, which was very moving. I reflected, however, on the fact that there is still one great void in the membership of the Commonwealth. I refer to the Republic of Ireland.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) mentioned Ireland, but he may have overlooked the fact that Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth until 1949. I think that it is time that it returned to the Commonwealth. About a year ago, in parliamentary questions, I suggested that the Government—along with Heads of other Commonwealth Governments—should take the initiative in extending an invitation to the Irish Republic to rejoin the Commonwealth. I was disappointed to receive the reply, "Invitations are not extended; people or countries apply." I thought that a rather disingenuous and churlish approach; strictly speaking, that may be the position, but surely indications should be given that the time is now appropriate for Ireland to rejoin.
Irish men and women live in every corner of the Commonwealth, and they—or their children and grandchildren—play a full part in the Administrations and lives of Commonwealth countries. An Irish team would enrich the Commonwealth Games, for instance. Let me also remind those in the Irish Republic—if they read our deliberations—that it is no longer the "British" Commonwealth but the Commonwealth. That may reassure those who are beginning to contemplate Ireland's return.
In his discussions with Lloyd George, Eamon De Valera tried to persuade him that an Irish Republic could exist in what was then the British Empire, and by what he termed "external association". The head of that external association, he argued, could be George V, but Ireland would participate as a republic. Lloyd George threw up his hands in horror, and said that it could not possibly be done: it was alien to the whole concept of the British Empire. It was a great lost opportunity.


In that regard, De Valera was ahead of his time: exactly the same formula was used by Pandit Nehru in 1949. India remained in the British Commonwealth as a republic and, indeed, the majority of states in the Commonwealth are now republics. It is a great irony that, as India joined the Commonwealth with republic status, Ireland was taken out by the Costello Government. As things have bedded down, as there is a majority of republics in the Commonwealth and as the Commonwealth is demonstrably a powerful player for good in the world, it is time that Ireland came home to this family of nations.
Ireland has a proud record of working in international organisations, brokering peace in the world and contributing to peacekeeping forces. Its readmission would complement the work of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and many other countries.
It is significant that the External Affairs Minister of the Irish Free State, Kevin O'Higgins, played an important part in the discussions that led up to the Statute of Westminster Act 1931. Unfortunately, he was assassinated before enactment. I mention him because the Under-Secretary gave a limited history of the development of the Commonwealth in his opening remarks. He overlooked that major and important constitutional milestone, the Statute of Westminster, which settled our relationships with the Commonwealth as it then existed—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Broadly, it stated that those were countries of equal status with the United Kingdom. It has been a significant statute. It has given good service to the evolution of the Commonwealth.
I have, however, sought to make the point in the House for some time that the Statute of Westminster is now old. It needs to be reviewed with a view to the development of a new constitutional relationship between those countries in the Commonwealth mainly but perhaps inappropriately described as the "old Commonwealth" and those which still have as head of state Her Majesty the Queen. I raise the point because, sooner or later, we—when I say "we" I mean the 16 countries in the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state—will have to deal with the matter. It is better to do so now than at a moment of constitutional crisis.
I shall explain why I believe that we need to re-examine the Statute of Westminster. Three constitutional issues could arise which would create major problems for the Governments and Parliaments of the countries of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is head of state. One is the issue of the primogeniture rule, under which the heir to the throne is the first-born son of the monarch.
It is conceivable that in 20 years' time or more the first child of the heir to the throne or the monarch will he a girl and the second child a boy. Under our existing rules, the boy would become the heir to the throne. It is my understanding that this would create dissatisfaction, if not be unacceptable, to some of the countries in the Commonwealth that share the United Kingdom monarchy. That is one scenario that could create an immediate conflict. I venture to suggest that, if Canada and New Zealand are still monarchies at that time, they will find it unacceptable that a girl who was

the first-born of the monarch or the heir to the throne should be passed over in favour of the second child, who was a boy.
Secondly, it is conceivable that there could be a need for regency legislation at some stage—for example, if the monarch or the heir to the throne was incapacitated. That would require simultaneous and parallel legislation in 16 independent Commonwealth legislatures.
The third scenario is the divorce of the Prince of Wales. Legislation is not necessary for a divorce, but special legislation would be needed as a consequence of that divorce. If there was a subsequent marriage and if there was issue from that marriage, what position would those children have in the line to the throne?
Those three scenarios could arise and they need to be considered now, before there is a crisis. The first test of the Statute of Westminster Act was in 1936 when Edward VIII wished to abdicate. The Prime Ministers of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa used their powers under the Statute of Westminster to ask the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for the abdication. It would now be impossible for the Canadian Prime Minister or Parliament to ask the United Kingdom Parliament to enact the necessary legislation consequent on any of the three scenarios to which I referred; they are constitutionally unable to do so. In addition, it is arguable that they would have to alter their constitutions in any of those scenarios; it would not be simple for them to do so.
The Parliaments and Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and St. Kitts and Nevis have equal status in relation to the monarchy. In some parliamentary questions, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the mechanism by which Her Majesty the Queen can be given collective advice by the Prime Ministers of the 16 countries of which she is head of state. He said that there was not one. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, constitutionally the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the Queen in the United Kingdom.
I assume that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is the adviser to the Queen as head of the Commonwealth, but there is a gap. There is no collective mechanism by which the Prime Ministers of the 16 countries of which the Queen is head of state can give collective advice. Her Majesty's Government must deal with that point. They must take the initiative with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries to hold a conference so that those joint issues can be raised. There should be some mechanism whereby collective advice can be tendered to Her Majesty the Queen.
I wish to refer again to Ireland in the context of the scenarios that I have outlined. In 1936 the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa agreed that Westminster should enact His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 on their behalf, but the Prime Minister of one dominion declined. The Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, Eamon de Valera, said, "Hang on a moment. Westminster is not going to enact the head of state legislation for me." He used that occasion to abolish the post of governor general by legislation in the Dail and created the post of president. Effectively, and


legitimately from his point of view, he moved the Irish Free State one more ratchet towards his objective of a republic.
I have to issue a warning. If the points that I have raised regarding the 16 monarchies and the collective advice is ignored, and if any of the three scenarios to which I have referred occur, there will be trouble in the Commonwealth. For instance, Prime Minister Keating may take a leaf out of the book of Eamon de Valera. He may say, "I am going to go to the House of Representatives in Canberra and legislate for our own head of state." That could create many problems and ricochet throughout the Commonwealth because it would have all been done hastily, rather than in a considered way. We need to work out some mechanism whereby the countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state reach a collective agreement about monarchical succession, so long as that system endures.
One other point occurs to me, which is relatively minor but which flows from my previous point. I asked questions some time ago on what contribution the 15 other states of which the Queen is head of state make to the civil list and to the funding of the monarchy. I was told that they fund the monarchy's functions in their own jurisdictions, which I understand. When the Queen visits one of those countries, the Government of that country host her visit. I think that as a principle it would be good if, on a population basis, the other 15 states made some contribution to the running of Buckingham palace and the costs of the head of state.
Such a principle is especially significant in the debate about a new royal yacht. Apart from once a year, when Her Majesty the Queen visits the islands in Scotland, the royal yacht is primarily a symbol of her Commonwealth function, and she uses it when she visits countries around the world. The cost of the royal yacht should be shared, certainly between the 16 states of which she is head. Arguably, other countries may want to contribute too.
How about having a crew drawn from Commonwealth navies? I should have thought that that would be extremely attractive to the navies of the Commonwealth, especially those of countries of which the Queen is head of state. Since our armed forces are stretched, we should also develop further another practice that occurred in the past. Some of the ceremonial duties at Buckingham palace should be carried out more frequently by representatives of the armed forces of the other 15 states to which I referred.
I intervened on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and said that I would mention the empire. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries are fully independent, but some 14 jurisdictions, containing a total of almost 200,000 people, are not independent but are colonies. They are headed by a governor who is appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We have an obligation to those 200,000 people to ensure that they are subject to good governance. Here at Westminster, we need to find a way in which we can monitor, probe, scrutinise and examine the administration and stewardship of the governors who are appointed by the Foreign Secretary.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the issue of the colonies was much more important in this place, and I venture to suggest that, as a result, the colonies were more closely scrutinised. As the big colonies have gained independence, there is a real danger of our doing a disservice to the 14 other jurisdictions and forgetting about them. I have excluded Hong Kong because, regrettably, it will soon be leaving the Commonwealth. In those 14, apart from Hong Kong, there are about 200,000 people.
Those jurisdictions are peppered around the globe and we should try hard to provide some machinery whereby we can study their Administrations and provide them with some representation. We ought to consider what happens in the United States, where comparable jurisdictions can send non-voting Congressmen to Washington. They have the opportunity to speak in debates and to put questions exclusively on matters that relate to their jurisdictions.

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is canvassing a novel idea. Would not a simple solution to the dilemma be to encourage the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to establish a Sub-Committee, that could have some oversight over our remaining dependencies?

Mr. Mackinlay: I thought about that. My suggestion is not instead of that, but complementary to the concept of the Select Committee having a scrutiny role. We are talking about a group of people who are dispersed around the globe and it is impossible for the Select Committee to ensure the scrutiny to which I referred, or to ensure that messages are brought to this place about any unhappiness, criticism or need for remedies that might exist in those colonies.
Some limited form of representation at Westminster for those jurisdictions is required. What on earth could be wrong with that? I have felt somewhat frustrated. If the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and I were to take an interest in those jurisdictions, we would have no way of getting there. Great distances and enormous costs are involved. We might be included on delegations, but they are not the best vehicles for scrutiny.
I take an interest in Gibraltar. The first time that I went there was at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar, who had noticed that I had taken an interest. It would have been much better if I had been able to go without an invitation. When one goes as a guest, there is always the potential for embarrassment. We need to provide some opportunities for spot visits—

Mr. Don Dixon: During the recess.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend has a point.
Today I had lunch with a representative of the Australian Northern Territory. The Australian state Parliaments—let alone the federal Parliament—have a breathtaking travel budget. 1 am not advocating that, but there should be some opportunity for representatives of this place to visit the remaining colonies for which we have some responsibility without notice so that proper scrutiny can take place.
Like other hon. Members, I have painted a broad canvas of interests with regard to the Commonwealth. I was recently in the company of one of my hon. Friends, discussing my thesis that Ireland should return


to the Commonwealth. He said, "Why on earth would it want to do that?" I was shocked by that response and explained why I thought it would be to the mutual benefit of the Commonwealth and Ireland if it re-entered.
He expressed the view that the Commonwealth was unimportant, which deeply depressed me, because I acknowledge that it has been a force for good in the world—albeit a very silent force. It has done a great deal in brokering some ceasefires and has intervened where there has been bloodshed. Some hon. Members have referred to its failures, but it is important for us to acknowledge that it has also played a great part in trying to achieve some stability. In some cases, it is a ratchet against military takeovers.
Through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other agencies, we are able to aid and assist the fragile and emerging democracies in the Commonwealth. I should like the CPA to develop as a limited parliamentary arm that supervises the work of the Commonwealth secretariat and other agencies.
At the conference that I attended with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in October, I welcomed the innovation whereby the Secretary-General agreed to present a report to the assembly and then answer questions. I believe that the hon. Member for Hereford had a hand in that welcome development of parliamentary scrutiny of the important Commonwealth secretariat's work.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth has been a fervent supporter of that development. I take no credit for it but hand the credit to him, because he has always gone out of his way to ensure that he is available to exchange views with us.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position. That welcome development should be continued in subsequent conferences, because the Commonwealth agencies and secretariat are of considerable interest. It would be educative to a number of Commonwealth parliamentarians and show the democratic principles behind the Commonwealth if what Chief Anyaoku did in Canada were continued at future conferences.
I add my name to the list of hon. Members who proclaim the Commonwealth as a proud and valued institution, and I wish it well in its further development.

Mr. Baldry: This has been a timely and welcome debate. The House has been broadly united in agreement about the Commonwealth's value, potential and achievements. The underlying feeling that emerged in the debate was that more needs to be done to bring home, both here and overseas, what the Commonwealth stands for and its potential. That was the broad canvas against which today's debate took place.
A number of specific points were raised, some important and some of detail, and I shall try to respond to them, particularly to those on which I was specifically asked to respond. However, I do not want those points to detract from the strong overall agreement in the House.
By and large, I agreed with what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had to say on this subject. There is no daylight between the Government and the Opposition on the subject of Hong Kong, and I am sure that the House of Commons is at one in its position on Hong Kong, which is a great strength and support to the governor and people of Hong Kong, as we approach 1997 and the period of change.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised, however, that I fundamentally disagreed with him about our aid budget and the European development fund. We have every reason to be proud of our aid budget, which is the sixth largest in the world at a time when many countries, such as the United States and Canada, are reducing their aid budgets. I am sure that we shall debate that subject on many future occasions—I look forward to ODA questions on Monday—so I shall not dwell on the subject now.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) rightly discussed the contribution that the Commonwealth can make towards tackling drugs and international crime. I fully support him on that. We already do a considerable amount, and a large chunk of our aid budget is devoted to supporting Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan in tackling its drugs problem. As I said in my opening comments, one of the subjects that we shall consider at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Auckland is what more the Commonwealth can do to tackle drugs, money laundering and international crime.
There are already many excellent examples of co-operation. As recently as a few months ago, for example, the Government of Anguilla, working with others, achieved a first-class operation in setting up what was, in effect, a sham bank which sucked in large quantities of laundered money from the drugs trade and succeeded in achieving many arrests in South America, Spain and elsewhere and in having a significant impact on one of the Colombian cartels. That was a Commonwealth country working with the United States, ourselves and others to achieve that.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) specifically asked, in relation to some of the smaller dependent territories, whether, when they have offshore banking regulatory regimes, the costs should be met by greater licence fees. A number of those dependent territories, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, receive no development aid. Some dependent territories, such as Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands, do receive development aid. Because they are small territories, they need it. We regard responsible offshore finance as a means by which territories can achieve sustainable economies.
While I am on the topic of dependent territories, it may be helpful if I respond to the arguments of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I shall not leave out any issues raised by other hon. Members, but it might be convenient to discuss these points at this stage.
Dependent territories are not colonies; we have no colonies left—they are dependent territories. They have legislative assemblies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock did not mean it in that way, but I am sure that the Chief Ministers of countries such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the British Virgin Islands,


which have recently had democratic elections, would feel insulted if they thought that we in Westminster sought to interfere with their business.
In so far as the dependent territories have governors, those governors have reserve powers under the constitution. They are finite, limited powers under the constitution. The hon. Member for Thurrock is perfectly free to question Foreign Office and other Ministers about the responsibilities of those governors, in terms of those reserve powers, to the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister is right. I was not referring to the Chief Ministers and colleagues in the local legislatures. Those matters which are devolved to them are their affair, and I very much welcome that. It is those powers that are reserved to the governor which need to be scrutinised. They include the very important function of policing. Policing is therefore exclusively the province of the governor and the Attorney-General is invariably appointed from Westminster. I think that such powers need greater scrutiny.

Mr. Baldry: They are very much reserve powers. The governor would exercise powers over policing only if there had been some failure by the local legislative assembly to ensure that its territory was properly policed.

Mr. Mackinlay: Policing is not its function.

Mr. Baldry: Yes, it is. I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take a greater interest in the subject. If he formed a team of his colleagues, we might start with St. Helena. If they would like to visit St. Helena in the next six weeks or so, I am sure that the Government Chief Whip might be prevailed on to find the requisite funds.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock obviously wants to take an interest in the dependent territories, I should tell him that, if he visits the Foreign Office, officials will, I am sure, be happy to brief him on how limited the reserve powers of governors are nowadays. The dependent territories are, by and large, countries which determine their own decisions. Bermuda, which is a dependent territory, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has recently published a Green Paper and is debating whether it might consider moving towards independence.
It is absolutely right that we should be especially worried about parts of the Commonwealth which are in difficulty, and that we should be especially worried when parts of the Commonwealth are in difficulty with one another. In my opening comments, I referred to the position of Pakistan and India, which is of great concern to every friend of both countries.
It is tempting to think that either the United Kingdom or some other country or organisation could do something to take the process forward, but an imposed solution to Kashmir would be doomed to fail. Progress will only be made if India and Pakistan talk to each other and seek to resolve the situation in Kashmir themselves.
It is worth remembering that the Simla agreement was reached through discussions between Prime Minister Bhutto, the father of the current Prime Minister

of Pakistan, and Mrs. Ghandi when she was Prime Minister of India. They made considerable progress in those talks, and the evidence of history is that the greatest progress has been made when India and Pakistan talk to each other.
We have made it clear that we feel that there needs to be a genuine political process in Kashmir—the status quo cannot continue for ever—with full recognition of human rights and a cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. Those are important prerequisites.
On the broader issue of Pakistan, we were all delighted to welcome Prime Minister Bhutto to the United Kingdom last year. She came to a successful investment conference organised by the Confederation of British Industry and she obviously had the opportunity for discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and many others. She was a welcome visitor.
Next week I will lead a trade mission to Pakistan of some 50 business men and women, who are keen to invest in that country. They recognise that there is potential for partnership with it. I am sure that the Government of Pakistan see in the United Kingdom a people and Government who are keen to work with Pakistan to ensure its stability and development. It is a crucial country in the Commonwealth as it stands at the gateway to central Asia. We often look to Pakistan for advice on developments in that region. There is no shortage of desire to ensure that there is stability in Pakistan and that its Government is supported in their efforts to achieve economic stability and economic progress.

Mr. Galloway: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I wish him and the trade delegation well when they leave next week. Before he concludes his remarks on Kashmir, can he explain how it is that under international law, according to United Nations resolutions, there must be a plebiscite so that the people of Jammu and Kashmir can decide for themselves whether they wish to remain in India, join Pakistan or, for that matter, strike out as an independent country? The Simla agreement cannot supersede those UN resolutions, which have the force of international law.
In as much as the Simla accord was useful, does the Minister agree that bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan have run into the sand, or the snow, as I acknowledged earlier? Now there are no substantial negotiations or talks between those countries. All that I asked for in my speech was for Britain and the Commonwealth to kick-start that process, perhaps through an eminent persons group. Will the Minister give that request some consideration?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we spend a considerable amount of time considering the difficulties of and concerns about Kashmir. Many parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House quite rightly and most helpfully keep Ministers briefed on their visits to Kashmir, their impressions of it and their contacts with politicians on all sides of the equation.
We are firmly convinced, however, that progress will come about only when India and Pakistan decide that it is in their best interests to talk to each other. The Commonwealth can and will interfere only if Pakistan


and India request it to intervene. Long-term sustainable progress will come about only when India and Pakistan talk to each other. As I have said, all the evidence of history is that the greatest progress is made when India and Pakistan talk to each other.
In addition to speaking about Kashmir, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) raised the issue of Sri Lanka. He will be interested and pleased to know that the President of Sri Lanka was in London this week. She had discussions today with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and with me two days ago. Much of what we discussed with her dealt with what more we could do to help the peace process in Sri Lanka move forward.
Since the election of the President of Sri Lanka, considerable strides have been made in the peace process, which seeks to resolve the difficulties with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the north. That process appears to be temporarily halted, and we were keen to understand what more we could do to help her in that regard. We are certainly willing to give what support we can to move the process forward. We all earnestly hope that, by the time the CPA conference takes place in Colombo later this year, the peace process in Sri Lanka will have made considerable progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington summed up well our attitude towards the non-proliferation treaty. It is a valuable instrument in trying to ensure that world peace is sustained, and in the post-cold war era it is all the more important that the non-proliferation regime is sustained.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for responding to the three issues that I touched on. Perhaps I could ask about the issue which concerns me and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). The Minister spoke rather disparagingly about Britain or the Commonwealth seeking to impose a solution in relation to Kashmir or of seeking to interfere between India and Pakistan. That was not the sense of what I and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) were seeking to say.
We sought to say that we should take every opportunity, bilaterally and through the Commonwealth, to make our good offices available in different ways to facilitate some sort of coming together and a rational process. If that does not happen, the dispute has all the qualities necessary to turn the area into a serious flashpoint, possibly with wider implications for the world as a whole.

Mr. Baldry: Progress will be made only if India and Pakistan decide to talk and move matters forward in their best interests and in the best interests of the people of Kashmir. If at any time India and Pakistan come to us together and say, "We would like the assistance of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth to facilitate progress on this issue," it is inconceivable that we would do anything other than seek to be supportive. But we cannot seek to be an umpire or to impose some solution on India and Pakistan. That is the straightforward position.

Mr. Foulkes: I should like to press the Minister on this issue. It would be wrong for us to expect the

Minister to respond immediately to the powerful case that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). It would be helpful to the House for the Minister to say that he will take this matter away and have a word with the Foreign Secretary to find out his reaction to these suggestions. In the light of the well argued case of my hon. Friend, that is the least that the Minister can do, and I hope that he will do it.

Mr. Baldry: It is always tempting to take problems away, but it would be disingenuous of me to do that, because this issue has been raised frequently with us. We have given it careful consideration over a long time and, as I have said, our clear view is that progress in Kashmir will be made only if the Governments of India and Pakistan talk to each other, if a genuine political process is started in Kashmir, if there is full recognition of human rights there, and if there is a cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. [Interruption.]

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Minister not understand that the Simla accord is more than 20 years old, that about seven bilateral sets of talks have taken place between India and Pakistan, and that India has shown a marked reluctance to discuss Kashmir in any meaningful way? As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) just said from a sedentary position, peace would never have come to South Africa if the Minister's attitude towards Kashmir had been displayed towards creating democracy in South Africa.
We are asking for some fresh thinking. Like the Foreign Office in its policy on Kashmir in the past five years, the Minister seems to be whistling in the dark. No elections will take place in Kashmir. The overwhelming majority of people in Kashmir want the right to determine their own destiny. We are asking the Commonwealth to take an initiative to ensure that peace and the right to determine their affairs come to the people of Kashmir, as it has come to the people of South Africa.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is asking for the Commonwealth unilaterally to interfere—(Interruption.] Yes, he is. He is asking it unilaterally to interfere in the internal affairs of two Commonwealth countries. Its rules are clear: it can intervene only if both Pakistan and India request its involvement. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a large number of constituents who take a particular interest in the Kashmir issue—that is understandable—but I repeat that in my view, and in that of the Government and the vast majority of people, sustainable progress on the Kashmir issue will be made only if India and Pakistan talk to each other, with each country wishing to reach a solution without other parties' involvement, and without it looking as though we or others are seeking to act as umpires or to impose some solution on those two countries.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way any more on this, as I have comprehensively explained our position on Kashmir. It seems that the spokesmen from the two Opposition parties are being slightly disingenuous in the way in which they are approaching the issue. It is a


difficult subject, which is of considerable concern to two of our Commonwealth colleagues. I have made our position clear. If either the Liberal or the Labour spokesmen is suggesting that progress should be made other than in the way I have suggested—which is by talks between India and Pakistan, by genuine political process in Kashmir, by a cessation of external support for violence, and by recognition of human rights in Kashmir—they owe a duty to the House to make that clear.

Mr. Campbell: In the Minister's anxiety not to prejudice the position, he has closed his mind to another possibility, which some of the interventions have sought to embrace. It is right to say that progress will be made only when the two countries agree to talk to each other, but what is wrong with the Commonwealth encouraging them to talk to each other?

Mr. Baldry: It is clear from everything that I have said that we and everyone should continue to encourage India and Pakistan to talk to each other. We do that whenever we have any discussions with members of the Indian or Pakistan Government. If I have the opportunity next week when I am in Islamabad and elsewhere, I am sure that I shall repeat what I have said to the House today. Of course we take every opportunity to urge India and Pakistan to talk to each other and to make progress on the issue, because we are aware that it is of considerable concern to many people, but real sustainable progress will be made only if India and Pakistan talk to each other. There is no disagreement about that.
I should like to make two final points for completeness. In relation to Ireland, there is always a danger of it looking as though the UK is speaking for the Commonwealth. It is always tempting to think that we can speak for the Commonwealth, but we would appear presumptuous if it were thought that we were doing so. It is self-evident that countries are applying and do apply for membership of the Commonwealth, and the Government of Ireland must know that it is always open to them to do likewise if they choose to do so.
The last time I studied the statute of Westminster was for my university law finals. Having heard all the horrific things which might occur as a consequence of that statute, I should like to take the matter away, reflect upon it, discuss it with the Law Officers and write to the hon. Member for Thurrock, who raised a cornucopia of problems.
I hope that I have responded to all the specific points raised by hon. Members. I must mention the Commonwealth Institute, because it is important. I should make it clear that the Government emphatically do not want the institute to close: we want it to use the fine building in Kensington high street, provided by the Government, to promote the Commonwealth in a modern way and to be able to stand increasingly on its own feet. I certainly commend the work of the institute's board. The director-general and his staff have shown commendable drive and imagination in developing a re-launch strategy, and it was because of that that Ministers judged the strategy worthy of support.
As I said in July last year, we offered an extra £2.4 million to help with the institute's own fund raising. We have set the institute the target of raising £5 million in the next 18 months. The Government hope that the public, businesses and all those who see the Commonwealth as a force for good will respond generously. When the institute raises that sum, as I hope it will, we shall be ready to respond speedily to ensure that the windows of opportunity that have been alluded to are taken advantage of and that no opportunity is missed. As I have said, we wish the Commonwealth Institute to continue.
This has been a helpful and welcome debate. I hope that I have responded to all the points that have been raised and I hope that it will not be too long before we have another debate on the Commonwealth.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL

Ordered,

That it be an Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for facilitating the enforcement of overseas forfeiture and restraint orders.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Orders of the Day — Power Line (Vale of York)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Baldly.]

Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for selecting for debate the proposal for a new 400 kV power line through the vale of York. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Dispatch Box. It is good to see him there. I understand that this is his first Adjournment debate. In wishing him many more, I am thinking only of the length of his ministerial career.
This is the fifth time that the matter has been raised on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is in his place, has raised the matter twice and I have raised it twice. That speaks for itself.
From time to time, all hon. Members experience local controversy over planning matters. Over time, opposition generally wanes, perhaps following a detailed examination of the facts at a public inquiry. That is not the case with this issue, for reasons that I shall outline shortly.
The debate arises out of decisions taken over four years ago on the construction of a gas-fired electricity generating plant—ENRON—at Wilton on Teesside and the subsequent requirements for the electricity generated to be connected to the national grid.
In September 1990, before the then Secretary of State for Energy gave planning consent for ENRON, the Office of Electricity Regulation issued a derogation to the National Grid Company for ENRON's connection to the grid. Under the Electricity Act 1989, the NGC had a statutory duty to provide that.
Shortly afterwards, the NGC entered into an agreement with Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric to increase the interconnection and transmission capability between Scotland the north of England. It was a purely commercial decision by the NGC. As a direct consequence, the NGC concluded that it would need to strengthen the transmission capacity in Yorkshire and, in September 1991, it lodged an application with North Yorkshire county council for the construction of a 400 kV overhead line from Lakenby to Picton and from Picton to Shipton through the entire length of the vale of York.
The proposed line would extend over some 56 km of open countryside. That was the first intimation to local authorities in Yorkshire that the construction of ENRON would have such profound implications for local communities. It highlights a fundamental weakness in the planning process for power stations. There is no requirement to consider the need for transmission into the national grid, or to assess whether the location of a power station makes sense in terms of national energy strategy.
Without question, had the North Yorkshire local authorities been consulted when the ENRON application was considered, they would have registered the strongest opposition. At the very least, they would have sought to ensure that conditions be attached to any planning consent, restricting further power lines in the county.
It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that the communities affected by the Vale of York power line proposal feel let down by the planning system. The public inquiry held in 1992 was not seen as sufficiently independent. The inspectors, who were appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry, rather than by the Department of the Environment as happens in all other planning matters, constantly gave the impression that their job was to smooth the way for the power line to be built rather than to make an impartial and objective assessment of the NGC's claims.
Throughout, the NGC relied on the argument that it was merely seeking to fulfil a legal duty. The inspectors agreed and seemed to think that they had no choice. The final paragraph of their report to the Secretary of State states:
we are satisfied that for NGC to comply with their statutory responsibilities and the terms and conditions of the transmission licence there is a need to reinfuice the transmission system.
Surely, planning should never be about just "technical" issues. The views of people whose lives are affected must have weight, as they do in any other planning matters, yet the inspectors rejected their concerns. All that seems to matter is that the NGC fulfils its legal requirements regardless of all else.
It seems that we should forget about agricultural interests, concerns about health and the fact that there has not been a proper environmental assessment—a point that I have already raised with Environment Ministers on the Floor of the House. It seems that we should forget that the better solution of undergrounding does not suit the NGC's balance sheet or that the area itself derives no benefit from the proposal—the NGC's interests are paramount. I suggest that that is not a sustainable position for the Government to take.
It is little wonder that local people are up in arms. When the public inquiry was held in 1992, more than 8,000 objections were lodged. Since then, a petition organised by REVOLT—a group campaigning against the power line—collected more than 12,000 signatures and has been lodged with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Opposition to the proposed power line has strengthened as the weakness of the NGC case and the deficiencies in the structure of the electricity industry and energy industry generally post-privatisation have become more apparent. If there is one message that I want the Minister to take from the debate, it is that North Yorkshire says no to the power line proposal.
Although we have begun the Adjournment debate slightly earlier than usual, time will not allow a full examination of all the facts. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister has spent many hours reading the various reports and papers. I have, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.
The following issues are relevant. First, the NGC has failed to establish that the new line is needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will doubtless tell us that my hon. Friend and I have that wrong. We have not; he has. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that a 400 kV power line already exists throughout the length of the proposed route. Its capacity is 5,560 mVA —do not ask me to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what that means. The important fact is that that capacity is the highest of any part of the national grid. That is the stretch that it is proposed to strengthen.


The route is significantly under-utilised. The derogation granted to the NGC to connect the ENRON power station to the grid has proved entirely adequate. The inspector's report following the 1992 inquiry went into considerable detail in considering whether the temporary derogation should become permanent. The arguments against extending the derogation are unconvincing and acknowledge disagreement within the electricity industry on transmission standards.
At the 1992 inquiry, Dr. Ian Davis, on behalf of the NGC, conceded that the organisation
take a commonsense view of the application of transmission standards, taking into account the costs and the potential benefits in each case, so departure is often argued for in reasoned terms and can often be justified.
In other words, the NGC interprets the standards to suit itself.
I have mentioned the need to improve the link with Scotland, which was the NGC's commercial decision. That need has also been argued as a justification for the power line. But why construct a second high-voltage line on the east side of Yorkshire to cater for Scottish power, which is transmitted on the west coast of Scotland to Carlisle, when the extra load of the export of electricity of 750 MW could be carried south of Carlisle on existing lines, which in the NGC's seven-year statements show a surplus capacity of 2,400 MW?
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, two other gas-fired generating stations for the north-east coast, Flotilla and Neptune, are under consideration. The inspectors and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to argue that the transmission demands of ENRON and Scottish electricity exports are in themselves sufficient to justify strengthening the national grid, but no one is in any doubt that the accommodation of the additional capacity from Neptune and Flotilla is the real reason for the NGC seeking to strengthen the grid.
Indeed, the NGC has already entered into agreements with Neptune and Flotilla for connection into the grid. Yet no formal applications for planning consent for either Neptune or Flotilla have even been lodged. Potentially, they are very much in the future. They may never be given planning consent. They do not justify bolstering the NGC's case for new transmission lines at this time.
It is worth bearing it in mind that a connection agreement with no planning consent in Hampshire and an agreement in Lincolnshire with consent have recently been cancelled. The future of energy generation and pricing is under review. We read in the press this week that the future of the NGC sell-off is in doubt. At the very least, the current uncertainties dictate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should postpone any final decision on the NGC application.
As I have already said, there is also continuing uncertainty about transmission standards. The NGC has merely adopted the standards established in the 1970s by the Central Electricity Generating Board with no regard to improved technology and despite the fact that faults on the NGC transmission system are currently less than one minute per customer per year. That is a security of supply of 99.999 per cent. The position

with the regional electricity companies is rather less remarkable, amounting to an average for connected customers of 164 minutes' disruption a year. Why on earth do we wish to despoil the countryside of North Yorkshire for a potential loss of that one minute per customer per year?
The higher the standard of transmission, the greater the eventual cost for the customer. The NGC also has a vested interest in shifting electricity round the country. That is how it earns its money. However, in the case of ENRON, it results in a power loss of up to 6 per cent. because of the distance over which the electricity is transmitted. With Scottish exports, the power loss may be up to 10 per cent.
Mindful of the importance of those issues, shortly after the 1992 inquiry, Professor Littlechild ordered the NGC to conduct a review of four areas of transmission standards: operating standards, planning standards, connection standards and quality criteria. It took the NGC almost two years to respond. It consulted generators, RECs, interconnectors and customers, but not the environmental lobby. It seems that only North Yorkshire local authorities made representations on the environment, because other local authorities and environmental groups were unaware that the review was taking place.
Bearing in mind the two years that it took the NGC to respond in its review of its own transmission standards, Professor Littlechild has now given until 31 March—just two weeks' time—for a wider input of views. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 places a duty on the regulator to take into account the effects of electricity transmission on the physical environment. It is part of the case of those who oppose the line through North Yorkshire that that duty has not been properly exercised.
In a statement in February, Professor Littlechild made it clear that he was not satisfied with the retention of the existing standards, although provisionally—and I stress provisionally—he did not intend to make changes in the short term. He also confirmed that he intends to look with Ofgas at the relative pricing of electricity and gas transmission lines and that he will then return to the question of the pricing of transmission and its implications for price control by the NGC. In other words, the whole question of transmission standards, in addition to the NGC's future and what will happen to electricity generating policy, remains in a state of flux.
The Minister will doubtless argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I have heard so many times in the past, that the Secretary of State will have to reach a final decision on the matter based on the transmission standards as they apply at the time he makes his decision. With respect, that is simply not good enough.
As each day passes, it becomes ever clearer that the privatised energy utilities are capable of delivering greater efficiency and lower prices. That is what came out of our own regional electricity company, Northern Electric, in its spirited defence, which I supported, after the Trafalgar House bid. That is what has prompted the further review of prices announced by Professor Littlechild, about which we have heard so much during the past seven or eight days.


In two or three years' time, as a consequence of all this, we could be looking at a completely different requirement for transmission. Why, then, should this proposed power line be foisted on the people of north Yorkshire when the argument in favour is at best doubtful, and at worst—particularly in the longer term—totally unnecessary?
We must also ask who will pay for the new power line and for all the nonsense that has been going on. Who will pay all the costs of the inquiries? There is only one answer—the consumer. It will certainly not be the NGC or the power generator at ENRON.
As the Minister is aware, a further public inquiry is now under way at Northallerton, examining alternative proposals for two sections of the proposed power line route. Many of the issues that I mentioned are being raised in further evidence to the inspectors.
Local landowners have expressed total dissatisfaction with the handling of the inquiry and the unseemly haste with which proceedings are being carried forward. The attitude of the NGC and of the inspectors does nothing to enhance the credibility of the DTI. The current inquiry is also considering the question of wayleaves.
Before finishing my speech, I stress in the strongest possible terms the fact that two thirds of the landowners affected by the proposal have not reached agreement with the NGC for the siting of pylons on their land. In some cases, cash offers in excess of £40,000 have been refused. It is not like Yorkshire farmers to refuse that sort of money without good reason.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, on this serious matter, to give an undertaking tonight that, so long as the majority of landowners fail to reach agreement with the NGC, the Secretary of State will not use his powers to impose agreements. Landowners and farmers are resisting the bullying tactics of the NGC, to demonstrate their outright opposition to the power line and their helief that any truly subjective independent appraisal of the NGC's application would result in the plan being shelved.
In responding to the inspectors' report in May last year, the President of the Board of Trade said that he was "minded" to grant approval. I trust that my hon. Friend will confirm tonight that that does not mean that my right hon. Friend has already made up his mind, and that there is still time for him to be influenced and to come to a different decision.
I hope that in this brief debate I have given my hon. Friend the facts that he needs to persuade the officials in his Department, and ultimately the President of the Board of Trade, to think again. For the reasons that I outlined, there is sufficient doubt about the direction of future energy policy not to proceed with the construction of a second 400 kV power line through the vale of York unless and until it is inescapably required.
If people were convinced that the power line was inescapably required, the opposition to it would be nothing like as strong or as vehement. But the NGC has dismally failed to provide a justification. ENRON has been generating electricity for two years, since the winter of 1992-93, and the lights have not gone out yet. In spite of that, and in spite of all the other uncertainties about future transmission requirements, the NGC is ploughing ahead with new commitments,

although the power line proposal has not yet been approved. Such action is insensitive, to say the least, bearing in mind the strong opposition to the proposal.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to reassure me, my constituents and the people in the Richmond constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. Even more people are affected in Richmond than in Ryedale, and we are finding it bad enough. Minister, please reassure us that the NGC has no authority from the Department to behave in such a cavalier fashion, and that in response to the most strongly felt public anger that I have ever known, the Department will reject the NGC proposal, or at the very least postpone indefinitely any final decision. Please listen to the voice of local people in north Yorkshire. Tonight that voice says emphatically, "No, no and no again," to the National Grid Company.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I know from experience how difficult it is to obtain time for debates of this kind. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on his success, and thank him for the kind words with which he opened the debate.
There have been two previous Adjournment debates on this matter, the others having taken place in 1991 and 1992. It must be quite unusual for three Adjournment debates to be held on the subject of a single overhead line project: that demonstrates the level of concern. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the zeal and effectiveness with which he has pursued the interests of his constituents, not only this evening but over the long history of the project.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Page.]

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend's constituents can know that, whatever the outcome of the proposal, he has represented them in a most effective and forceful fashion. Having read the files that have accumulated over the years, I know that he has been a definitive and powerful force in expressing their concerns.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have acted in a similar fashion on behalf of their constituents. Let me particularly mention my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who raised the matter on the two previous occasions. Despite his ministerial duties, he has made time to be present tonight; he sits beside me, a brooding presence, waiting to express the anxieties of his constituents.
I know that both my hon. Friends appreciate that I cannot discuss the merits or otherwise of the project. I can only view it as an ordinary Member of Parliament—as if such a project were proposed for my constituency. I understand my hon. Friends' natural concerns, but as a Minister I note that this would be one of the largest overhead line developments of recent years, and it is entirely appropriate for it to receive detailed scrutiny both throughout the planning process and in the House.


All aspects of the project have been, or still are, the subject of statutory proceedings, reports of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will consider carefully when making his decisions. I must therefore limit my remarks to general matters, and not the specific issues that have been raised in the public inquiries and local hearings.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of the background to the project and the current position. I know that my hon. Friends are vividly aware of the circumstances, but it is only right to put them on the record, because what is said tonight will command a wider audience.
The NGC submitted five applications for consent under the Electricity Act 1989, in September 1991. The applications suggested alternatives—two possible routes for the proposed line between Lackenby on Teesside and Picton in North Yorkshire, and three possible routes between Picton and Shipton, also in north Yorkshire.
Those applications were the subject of a long public inquiry in 1992, whose report my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade published on 12 May last year. At that time, he said that he was minded to accept the inspectors' recommendations but would make no final decisions on the five applications until the NGC had made progress in obtaining the appropriate rights over the land concerned. That is in line with his normal practice in cases where wayleaves have not been obtained.
The inquiry inspectors recommended that consent be granted for the major part of an overhead line between Lackenby and Shipton, combining elements of the five application routes, but recommended refusal for three sections of the line. It suggested undergrounding for one section and possible rerouting overhead for the other two sections.
Since that time, the NGC has pursued wayleave negotiations with the landowners involved. As few of the landowners were willing to grant wayleaves voluntarily—my hon. Friend referred to that forcibly this evening—the NGC applied to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for necessary wayleaves under the provisions in schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989.
Local hearings on the applications were held in November and December 1994. The NGC has also submitted a compulsory purchase order relating to land required for the underground cable, including the sealing end compound, and new consent and wayleave applications in respect of alternative routes in the other two sections which my right hon. Friend suggested that he was minded to refuse consent. All those matters are the subject of a new public inquiry, which is currently in progress in Northallerton.
At this point, I should like to take the opportunity to put the record straight about certain complaints against my Department on procedural matters. For example, I am aware, from correspondence that I have seen, that there has been public comment that there has been complicity between my Department and the NGC—the applicant—on procedural matters. I reject such accusations unreservedly.
The House will appreciate that I have only recently acquired a direct interest in the project. I have found it somewhat ironic, given that the project was first applied for some three and a half years ago, that objectors to it have complained that my Department has been over-hasty in arranging inquiries and hearings.
Minimum periods of notice are laid down in statutory regulations. Wherever possible, and indeed in almost all cases, my Department has given the parties concerned longer notice than required by regulations. It is also true that those concerned have generally been aware from a date much earlier than receipt of the notice that a particular inquiry or hearing would be held following objections by the relevant local planning authority or relevant individuals. Therefore, as the House will understand, I reject completely any suggestion that individual parties have not had sufficient time to prepare their case for a particular inquiry or hearing.
I also understand that some objectors to the project have found it difficult to accept the appointment of Mr. Alan Walker as one of the inspectors at the public inquiry taking place at Northallerton. My hon. Friend did not refer to the matter, but it is right to put it on the record. The difficulty in acceptance of Mr. Walker is apparently because he was one of the inspectors who held wayleave hearings at the end of 1994.
I do not accept that Mr. Walker's role as an inspector is in any way compromised by his involvement in those hearings, even in so far as those hearings and the current inquiry raise common issues. The wayleave hearings dealt with site-specific interests relating to the granting of rights across specific pieces of land, rather than to all the planning issues associated with consent applications. Mr. Walker made it clear at the wayleave hearings that he would not be making any recommendations to my right hon. Friend on the generic issues considered at the 1992 public inquiry.
My hon. Friend touched on health issues only briefly—en passant, if Hansard can put "en passant". I do not know whether we are allowed to use little French phrases. I should like to make a comment on health. A large majority of those who have made representations to my right hon. Friend, either in correspondence or through the inquiries and hearings, have expressed anxiety about adverse health effects. In particular, an increased health risk has been perceived by the public as a result of studies published in other countries which suggest a possible association between electromagnetic fields and cancer.
My right hon. Friend can take into account only the most current and authoritative evidence available to him when he makes a decision, including advice from the Department of Health and the National Radiological Protection Board. That applies in the case of any overhead line decision and such decisions are being taken every day. The NRPB's current advice is that it has considered all the available information and has concluded that it does not establish that exposure to electromagnetic fields is a cause of cancer, although it provides some evidence to suggest that the possibility exists, which justifies moving forward with research.
The significance of an epidemiological study depends, among other things, on the strength of the association, the presence of dose-relationship, supporting experimental evidence and a credible biological explanation. Those tests for causality are not satisfied


for a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer and the NRPB does not therefore recommend the adoption of quantitative restrictions on human exposure to electromagnetic fields. Should, of course, the NRPB's advice change before my right hon. Friend reaches any decision on this project, he will take that new advice into account.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has yet to receive and consider a number of reports by independent inspectors on different aspects of the project. He is also obliged to consider any new relevant evidence which he receives before he makes his decisions. If he takes into consideration any such new evidence or new matter of fact which disposes him to disagree with the

recommendations made by any of the inspectors, he must, under the relevant procedure, give the parties involved an opportunity to ask for the reopening of that inquiry.
I assure my hon. Friend and the House that no decisions on the various individual applications until my right hon. Friend will be taken before he is satisfied that he has all the information before him to enable him to take that decision. Furthermore, as the House will realise, my right hon. Friend cannot take a decision that will in any way restrict his discretion in relation to any other decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.